|
In conclusion, most of my group seems to be for this, but I'm kind of against it. Can you guys help me out and tell me what the big deal about Pathfinder is because I don't get it. I'll acknowledge it has some good points...the minion rules are amazing and some of the prestige classes are cool, but why not just make them base classes as to add more options to players.
As a RPGA DM and PFS GM (and have homebrews for both), they've both fun games but in very different ways. Give it a shot; if it's not for you, well, return to playing 4e. (Unless your group likes PF.)
EDIT: We're more than willing to answer more specific, concrete answers about Pathfinder once you've played the game.
When will your group be playing?
|
Paging Admiral Ackbar... Admiral Ackbar, please pick up the blue courtesy phone.
IT'S A TARP!
EDIT: More constructively, +1 to joela.
Much of the "uniqueness" of characters comes from what you choose with each of those special abilities. Unlike 4th ed where the classes have their shtick from the start, Pathfinder classes are relatively malleable. The same class can be controller, buffer, beatstick, etc, depending on how you build them.
My advice is to try and make the character personalities come to the forefront a bit, it always makes it easier to figure out how you're going to configure your version of the class.
Sits up his Lawn chair, stars a fire, roasts some marshmallows and pours himself some rum
"Has it started yet?"
Please don't take this post as a flaming of 4e - I haven't even played 4e, merely looked through the books a few times.
If what you want from the game is "a pen and paper version of my favorite game of all time" then 4e is probably the closest you'll get. Pathfinder (and D&D 3.x in general) is quite different, and has far less influence from computer gaming.
Now, as for PF character classes being bland - I fully disagree. I find them a LOT more interesting and separate from each other than the 4e classes, since many of the 4e classes powers seem to be "same thing, different name" to me - more or less "special sword swing, 4d6 damage, 1/encounter", "ray of fire, 4d6 damage, 1/encounter", "stab him in the back, 4d6 damage, 1/encounter". At least that's how it seems to me. In 3.x and PF, the classes are more distinct in how they are built - wizards have uses/day which forces them to prioritize how to spend their resources, while fighters can do their thing all day long and will be the saviours if the adventuring day turns out to be longer than usual.
About the options - there too I don't agree. First, PF is backwards compatible with D&D 3.x, which has a HUGE amount of options with all the splatbooks (some better, some worse - use them carefully). Secondly, I find D&D 3.x far easier to homebrew than how it seems to me it would be in 4e, since there's abilities for most stuff in D&D 3.x and PF it's easy to determine power level of what you invent.
Tieflings are in PFRPG, just that they are first and foremost seen as NPC races - they are in the beastiary. That said, the beastiary has rules for playing them. Drakelings or w/e they're called don't exist in PF core, as they simply don't exist in the PF official worlds - but other races exist that aren't in 4e. IIRC, either gnomes or halflings went away with 4e, right? Both are here in any case, and Aasimar as well, which are the "good" variant of tieflings.
And it's really easy to homebrew or put in drakelings from other 3.x sources - dragonlance campaign setting or the draconomicon probably has a few options. Half-dragons (as in, one parent dragon) exists in PF, but are very, very powerful and not usually an option for players.
I agree that PF is less dependent on minis - a good thing IMO, but YMMV. That said, I find the rules supporting minis - it's just that they aren't an integral part of the game. In PF, minis are just representations of your characters on a map, and all the normal PF rules apply and are well integrated with playing on a map (with a few annoyances like diagonal reach weapons). I've played D&D for about 10 years now, and for the first 6 we didn't use any kind of minis or anything like that at all - if something really needed to be shown rather than told, we did it with paper and pen. Not to sound like an old man claiming everything were better before - just that it's a valid playstyle and that some people prefer it since they feel they can better immerse themselves in the game. Nowadays we play with glass markers but we use rulers rather than squares.
Skills are useful in PFRPG in the same way they are in 4e, I imagine. I don't know the 4e skill system that well, but exactly what is your objection to PF's?
Level 20 is the top for PF, but there's rules up to level 40 in D&D3.5 (which is compatible with PF). That said, at higher levels the game tend to break down because there's too much things to do and the characters are too powerful (IMHO). A level 20 wizard can create dimensions, travel anywhere at anytime, and change the fabric of the universe - Level 20 casters seem more powerful in PF than in 4e IMO.
And as for tanks and dpsers - PF and D&D 3.x isn't as focused on these individual roles as 4e and computer games are. While it is a valid game style, many people don't appreciate it and think it's boring because it's too mechanical, and many people choose their characters out of "cool concepts" rather than optimization. YMMV, though.
And "healer" isn't really a role that's used very much in PF or D&D3.x. You heal when you have to, but a cleric is much more than a healer. It can be built as a somewhat melee character with a lot of supporting magic, or a more spellcasting character that doesn't get into the fray that much. Supposedly even archer clerics are viable.
But something I don't really get about your post is that at some points you seem to complain of a lack of options to customize your character (class abilities, races) while at other points you seem to complain that there's too much customization (multiclassing)
------
What I LIKE about PF D&D 3.x:
- The diversity. You can combine so many things, so enormously many things, that you can create almost every hero character imaginable with just the basic rules. While some may be more optimal than others, you can get a viable option in most cases.
- That everyone plays with the same rules. For me as a DM and adventure crafter, this is a biggie. Every monster in the game can be explained by the same rules as every player in the game. All parts of the game work exactly the same way for the DM as for the players (except of course that the DM is, well, the DM).
- The out-of-combat options and world representation. I think PF and D&D 3.x does a remarkably GOOD job at simulating reality within it's skill system. Of course it's a game, so it's far from perfect, but it's actually quite realistic. I've DM'd a short political campaign with very few battles at all, and it was great fun and took nearly no homebrew at all.
- The customization. You can run almost any campaign and it's easy to adjust the game for a low-powered, dark, gritty game (the kind of game I like best) or an extremely colorful high-magic game where the cities are covered in dancing lights and strange creature are abundant (like something from a miyazaki movie).
- It doesn't feel like a computer game. To me, that's a great thing. I play a lot of computer games, from ADOM to warcraft to diablo to planescape: torment, and having a good ol' pnp session feels so good much because it doesn't feel like all the computer games I play. It's a whole different world; not even the computer games based on D&D are close to the feeling of playing PF RPG (though most of them are remarkably good, I recommend planescape: torment over any other computer game ever made!).
------
By your post, it seems to me pathfinder might not be the game for you. If you want a simple, quick game with lots of quick action and not too much brainwork, a lot of color and MMO feeling, 4e might just be the game for you. I don't mean this in any pejorative way, as I can clearly see the charm in such games, it's just that PF and D&D 3.x is very different.
|
|
By your post, it seems to me pathfinder might not be the game for you. If you want a simple, quick game with lots of quick action and not too much brainwork, a lot of color and MMO feeling, 4e might just be the game for you. I don't mean this in any pejorative way, as I can clearly see the charm in such games, it's just that PF and D&D 3.x is very different.
+1.
|
|
You should play Pathfinder because it's a very fun game. It also sounds like your friends are playing it, and that's another very good reason.
In 4e, "role" refers solely to role in combat. In Pathfinder, there are no clearly defined combat roles - each character is left to do as they please in combat. The "role" in "roleplaying" refers instead to the role of your character - the persona. Some characters fill multiple 4e roles in combat. Others don't quite fit into any of them. In Pathfinder, you can make a pacifist wizard, and make him not only acceptable in combat but actually quite excellent, through clever use of spells.
The differences between 4e and Pathfinder have always been a controversial subject, by the way. That's why everyone is calling this thread a trap. Someone will likely say something about 4e that you don't like to hear; I ask in advance that you please pay them no attention.
Creative Director
|
First of all, thanks, everyone, for not immediately turning this into an edition war (with the exception of a few folks who seem to be eager for such to develop... please don't encourage edition wars!). I really hope we can keep the conversation nice and civil in this thread going forward.
As for Pathifnder; the ONLY reason you should play it is because it's fun to you. If it seems too limiting, complex, or confusing, that's cool; there's enough games out there for everyone.
That said, if you're in a situation where you happen to be the odd guy out and everyone else wants to play a game and you're the only one who doesn't... you should keep an open mind and try the game out. After all, these are your friends who are excited about the new game; and it doesn't matter if that new game is 4E, Pathfinder, or whatever. Your friends are your friends, likely, because you share a lot of interests and likes, and if they're eager to play a new game, you should give it a try.
That said, if the game DOES end up not being the game for you, the best thing is to bow out of the game. I've had some friends of my own who prefer 4E who have bowed out of Pathfinder games I'm in, and likewise I've bowed out of 4E games that my friends enjoy. It's no good to remain in a situation with friends where you're not enjoying the passtime, because that poisons the experience for everyone AND poisons your relationships. It's better in that case to bow out and find other things to do with your friends.
But before that, give the new game (again, whatever game it might be) a try for a few sessions. Sometimes... OFTENtimes, the fun of hanging out with friends outweighs everything else. But if you find the situation is starting to cause lots of arguments, it's time to do the mature thing and back away.
having started with 4E, it will be difficult for you to understand the concept of Pathfinder without 1. knowing the rules better, and 2. having played in in 2-3 sessions.
I suggest you give it a try.
Now for the differences:
If you want an emulation of mmorps for when the internet is down, you got 4E. It's more about very very restricted rules and everything that isn't covered by the rules is forbidden. Just like with PC-games.
If you wanna emulate a book, with endless possibilities, then Pathfinder is better. Yes, the rules are more complicated, but the spells aren't limited to the simplest ones. And there ARE lots of options to make your character unique. I can tell you that there are plenty of very different builds for each class.
Okay, now I think I gave you a pretty unbiased overview. I think I've now earned the right to rant ^^
fourth Edition is quite a joke to the community, it has the complexity of a card game à la Yu-gi-oh and pretends this would give you all the choices life would.
Now for WoW, don't do WoW, I nearly lost a friend to that thing, he now is 2 years behind me in school because he got hooked on that stuff. It's like the legal opium for the masses. Now he has finally understood his addiction and never ever touched that game again, thank god.
Damn, it was a trap, and I went right into it ...
My favorite edition will never repel anti-4E attacks of this magnitude.
To the OP, forgive me if I'm wary but as a fan of 4e over Pathfinder, your post looks like you are itching for debate, VERY HEATED debate (hence the flames). As a player of 4E, I don't appreciate the tone you began with, nor the wa you attacked another's game.
I also doubt the sincerity of your requests as you're "conviently enough" describing 4E by the aspects of it that tend to stir the flames. Even moreso, some of the things that I do not like about 4E that have been "Numerously" attacked by 4E haters.
If you truly want to know the allure of a different game system, I would gladly share with you the benefits of either system, and how each one may attract different styles of player.
To the bait-grabbers I ask.. no I PLEAD, do not bash 4e in rallying to your game's defense. I respect other's opinions and choice of game to not bash PF. I will AT THE VERY LEAST play a game for a few sessions before making a judgement call. I can discuss the merits and flaws that I associate with PF without saying things like:
"If you want a simple, quick game with lots of quick action and not too much brainwork, a lot of color and MMO feeling, 4e might just be the game for you."... Stringburka
As the game may be well clarified, it does not require less "brainwork" nor does it have an "MMO feeling" If you want to discuss FACTS about the differences in the game, I'm more than willing. For example, everything has more HP so battles tend to grind on a little long. See it's a fact, they do indeed have more HP, and those HP tend to outlast the powers.
Please let us not travel down this road, nor let this degrade our common sense of decency. Any gamer is a good gamer, no matter the system of choice. As long as we band together as gamers, we will grow as a community, instead of splintering into bitter rivalries so much that the industry fails due to isolationism.
+1. BTW, Aardvark Barbarian, did you have a chance to play using the Essentials rules yet?
No, the "approver of all things I want to spend money on", aka my wife, allows me a limited budget. I cashed it in for the Dark Sun stuff *drool* and will (when allowed) get a year of DDI for the DS game I'm running soon.
At the very least gonna try to whine a Rules compendium out of her. If it's one thing that I learned from WOTC, is that the rules that are in 17 different books and tons of errata are much better when in 1 book. If nothing else I will gt to toy around with the essentials stuff in DDI.
|
|
At the very least gonna try to whine a Rules compendium out of her. If it's one thing that I learned from WOTC, is that the rules that are in 17 different books and tons of errata are much better when in 1 book. If nothing else I will gt to toy around with the essentials stuff in DDI.+1. BTW, Aardvark Barbarian, did you have a chance to play using the Essentials rules yet?No, the "approver of all things I want to spend money on", aka my wife, allows me a limited budget. I cashed it in for the Dark Sun stuff *drool*
LOL. Buddy of mine, who hasn't run any rpg since AD&D 2nd edition, plans to start a 4e DS campaign due to his love of the setting. Hope to join his game; I never played in any DS game and am real curious about it.
|
|
"If you want a simple, quick game with lots of quick action and not too much brainwork, a lot of color and MMO feeling, 4e might just be the game for you."... StringburkaAs the game may be well clarified, it does not require less "brainwork" nor does it have an "MMO feeling"
To be perfectly fair, the game does (IMO) very much have an MMO feel to it. When I say that I mean that the classes are overtly designed to fill roles, and it is assumed that a party has most of these roles filled if they wish to be successful. This is very much an MMO-style design. That doesn't mean it's *exclusive* to MMOs (it's existed in many other games as well), it just wasn't until MMOs that it became considered formula.
This contrasts heavily with Pathfinder, where classes are built to represent a certain role filled from a world perspective. Fighters are the soldiers. Barbarians are those who fight using their emotion as a weapon. Monks are those who fight using their bodies. Rogues fight by finding weak spots and taking advantage of them. Wizards and sorcerers manipulate reality. Clerics and druids receive divine blessings (though from very different sources). The rules are designed so that (nearly) any conceivable interpretation of those roles are possible.There you have the main difference between 4e and Pathfinder. In 4e your class is defined by the role it plays in the party first, and its flavor second. In Pathfinder your class is defined by its flavor first, and its role in the party second.
Other differences in the system are primarily circumstantial.
My preference? Pathfinder, but only because I make some really weird characters and prefer to do more than one role decently well over doing one role really well.
Just my 2c.
LOL. Buddy of mine, who hasn't run any rpg since AD&D 2nd edition, plans to start a 4e DS campaign due to his love of the setting. Hope to join his game; I never played in any DS game and am real curious about it.
The setting has been my favorite since it first came out, mainly cause the world was so different than all the other worlds. It was a successful session when you survived, forget goals that is mine "I just wanna live". The new edition was done incredibly well. The setting info, is great, the map is gorgeous, and all the flavor that was in the original is intact. Few things I don't like, but I DM so bye-bye (the inclusion of Dragonborn and Tieflings, which to me shouldn't be core races anyways).
Also, DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Because Pathfinder has the best community where the company's creative director takes time out of his busy schedule to answer questions like this?
That'd sell me on a game.
+1, even though I play 4E, there's a reason I spend all my time in paizo community.
I choose to play pathfinder, because I believe it handles the elements of the game which I enjoy most better, it allows for a wider range characters, less limiting in its scope, and because Paizo support Pathfinder with an awesome setting and adventures.
If I am playing game where the PCs are inquisitives in the city of sharn, the skill, magic and chase system of Pathfinder supports that in a manner that is more to my taste than 4e. If I am in a game the tracks a party of characters from their early teenage years, through to their old age, as kings and lords of a new born nation, between nation building, mass combat and ageing, pathfinder covers these elements, and last I checked, 4e doesn't.
I can build a massive range of characters with pathfinder, the possible combinations dwarf those available in 4e. And I like the options.
I also love the fact that pathfinder doesn't decide for me how much combat power i will have, and how much non-combat power i will have. If I want to make an entirely no combatant, I can, if I want to make a pure killing machine with the social graces of a randy guinepig, I can, and I can choose anywhere on the spectrum between. I can't do that in 4e
Ofcause, none of that makes 4e bad, I the combat in 4e. It's tactical, flows well and is interesting, its just that combat is a very small part of the game for me. All that means that 4e is a game that I want to play on a more casual basis, maybe three of four times a year.
|
|
Few things I don't like, but I DM so bye-bye (the inclusion of DragonbornNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Can you tell I'm a dragonborn fan? ^_^
I wasn't a huge fan of dragonborn being a base race either, but that *may* have been because I spent several sessions trying to *earn* dragonborn status in a 3.5e game. Their flavor is pretty awesome, I must admit.
|
|
There you have the main difference between 4e and Pathfinder. In 4e your class is defined by the role it plays in the party first, and its flavor second. In Pathfinder your class is defined by its flavor first, and its role in the party second.
That...is one of the succinct opinions on the differences between the two systems I've ever read/heard/seen. Kudos!
To be perfectly fair, the game does (IMO) very much have an MMO feel to it. When I say that I mean that the classes are overtly designed to fill roles, and it is assumed that a party has most of these roles filled if they wish to be successful. This is very much an MMO-style design. That doesn't mean it's *exclusive* to MMOs (it's existed in many other games as well), it just wasn't until MMOs that it became considered formula.
I accept that it may "feel" like an MMO to you but bear with me:
AD&D 2nd Ed. PHB Pg. 25 (copyright 1989) says:
Quote:
The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest and rogue. Within each group are similar character classes. All classes within a group share the same Hit Dice, as well as combat and saving throw progressions. Each character class within a group has different special powers and abilities that are available only to that class. Each player must select a group for his character, then a specific class within that group.
End quote.
This was based off the core model of the game which in it's very early days began, with the class choices of:
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief.
Therefore, since the beginning the game has been seperated into 4 basic roles. I will only defend here, I ask you not to attack.
I can, if I want to make a pure killing machine with the social graces of a randy guinepigA what?
Sorry, guinea pig.
Lets try that again.
'If i want to make a character with the social graces of a randy and confused guinea pig, I can.'
Also, DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Because Pathfinder has the best community where the company's creative director takes time out of his busy schedule to answer questions like this?
That'd sell me on a game.
+1
And We all get to playtest the Magus... make that a +2
To be perfectly fair, the game does (IMO) very much have an MMO feel to it. When I say that I mean that the classes are overtly designed to fill roles, and it is assumed that a party has most of these roles filled if they wish to be successful. This is very much an MMO-style design. That doesn't mean it's *exclusive* to MMOs (it's existed in many other games as well), it just wasn't until MMOs that it became considered formula.I accept that it may "feel" like an MMO to you but bear with me:
AD&D 2nd Ed. PHB Pg. 25 (copyright 1989) says:
Quote:
The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest and rogue. Within each group are similar character classes. All classes within a group share the same Hit Dice, as well as combat and saving throw progressions. Each character class within a group has different special powers and abilities that are available only to that class. Each player must select a group for his character, then a specific class within that group.
End quote.This was based off the core model of the game which in it's very early days began, with the class choices of:
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief.Therefore, since the beginning the game has been seperated into 4 basic roles. I will only defend here, I ask you not to attack.
And if you look at almost every strand of roleplaying, it has evolved away from that. Role had come to refer to the taking on the role of your character. This was even true of DnD by the launch of 3.0 . The class role did not reappear in a big way until MMO'.
last I checked, 4e doesn't.
combinations dwarf those available in 4e.
I can't do that in 4e
I appreciate your limiting of the 4E turnaround, but everyone of your points effectively extolled the virtues of PF without necessitating the inclusion about 4E.
Posting positives you have with PF is certainly sufficient enough without needing to mention what you don't like about 4E. The idea is if we can mention the positives, they sell themselves, any negatives about a 4E player's game of choice tends to make them not hear your good points.
|
{EDIT: started writing this before any of the intervening posts!]
Are the players expecting you to run this for them, or is one of them offering to run it himself?
It's a lot to take in, if you have no experience of previous editions. Most of the posters here are coming at this from the opposite direction, having played a variety of Original, Basic, Advanced 1st, 2nd or 3rd Edition, over the last 35 years, so there's less for them to re-learn when playing PF, as opposed to 4E.
If they're wanting you to drop your current game and run PF for them, I would advise against it. No game can be exciting if the one running it isn't fired up with the possibilities. You'll likely resent the extra reading as a chore, and this will prejudice your presentation; you will find yourself subconciously looking for faults to showcase, to prove why your group should pick up the aborted 4E game.
If another in the group is offering to run it, give it a go as a player. See what the game's like, when you aren't responsible for entertaining everybody else.
It's a good idea for groups to rotate GMing duties anyway. No-one should be saddled with all the work, all the time. My groups have had a rule that if a player gets interested in a new game, they should learn it, and offer to run it. If we hadn't had that rule, we would have missed out on dozens of RPGs and boardgames, because if you wait for your current GM to switch, it'll never happen, because they have enough on their plate.
And actually running a game of their own should give players a lot more appreciation of the GM's responsibilities, and make them more supportive players, when they go back to the old game!
Thanks! That must have been some character! ;-)I can, if I want to make a pure killing machine with the social graces of a randy guinepigA what?Sorry, guinea pig.
Lets try that again.
'If i want to make a character with the social graces of a randy and confused guinea pig, I can.'
I have never felt that specific need, but if I ever do, be sure that I will be able to play said character in pathfinder, but in 4e, i would be left with pesky non-combat powers.(i truth, most of the non-combat powers in 4e are in truth combat powers anyway, so i can play that character in 4e too, but it is even harder to play the non-combatant.)
|
|
To be perfectly fair, the game does (IMO) very much have an MMO feel to it. When I say that I mean that the classes are overtly designed to fill roles, and it is assumed that a party has most of these roles filled if they wish to be successful. This is very much an MMO-style design. That doesn't mean it's *exclusive* to MMOs (it's existed in many other games as well), it just wasn't until MMOs that it became considered formula.I accept that it may "feel" like an MMO to you but bear with me:
AD&D 2nd Ed. PHB Pg. 25 (copyright 1989) says:
Quote:
The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest and rogue. Within each group are similar character classes. All classes within a group share the same Hit Dice, as well as combat and saving throw progressions. Each character class within a group has different special powers and abilities that are available only to that class. Each player must select a group for his character, then a specific class within that group.
End quote.This was based off the core model of the game which in it's very early days began, with the class choices of:
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief.Therefore, since the beginning the game has been seperated into 4 basic roles. I will only defend here, I ask you not to attack.
Hopefully this doesn't sound like an attack, then, because it is not meant as one.
Those groups are classifications of approach, not necessarily role. Now, I never played 2ed much, so those things may have been coupled then.
It should be noted that the groups in 4e look like the following: Controller, Striker, Defender, Leader.
In pathfinder the groups are (at best): Martial, Caster, Skilled, Hybrid. Hybrid is a catch-all for classes like Bard that do all three.
In the former the classes are grouped by role, in the latter by power source. These things are coupled in some systems (Only casters can be controllers, for example), but are not in either 4e or Pathfinder. That's not to say there isn't some soft-coupling (it's hard for a wizard to be a defender in either Pathfinder or 4e, for example), but rather I'm trying to distinguish between the priorities each system has.
My original point was that it is very MMO-like to group by role first. This is just my opinion, of course, and has no real bearing on the actual quality of the game itself.
Basically, the feel of a system changes with the design priorities. If the system's design priorities more closely align to your own, then you're more likely to enjoy it. In this case that happened with me and Pathfinder. Hopefully my mumbo-jumbo helps the OP understand the differences between the systems a bit, though.
|
|
Basically, the feel of a system changes with the design priorities. If the system's design priorities more closely align to your own, then you're more likely to enjoy it. In this case that happened with me and Pathfinder. Hopefully my mumbo-jumbo helps the OP understand the differences between the systems a bit, though.
+1 to this. To folks who've played a gamut of systems, I like to point to the HERO system and GURPS as analogous to DnD and Pathfinder. Both use point buy to generate PCs but the systems' philosophies like customization, lethality, etc. are almost on opposite sides of the spectrum. Both are fun, but cater to different philosophies and gamers.
And if you look at almost every strand of roleplaying, it has evolved away from that. Role had come to refer to the taking on the role of your character. This was even true of DnD by the launch of 3.0 . The class role did not reappear in a big way until MMO'.
That is incorrect. In 3.0, how gone were they?
Who had high HP and AC? WarriorsWho had attack/utility spells? Arcane
Who had healing covered? Divine
Who managed skills? Rogue
The role filled only changed with the dynamic that any class can multiclass into any other. And in all the years I played 3.x (that is all of them since it came out) with all the different people I played with (no small amount, having been in the Army and players come and go all the time) the tendency was that roles slowly vanished. Why? Because people made PC's that filled every role so they could lone wolf and not need anyone else to be able to accomplish anything. The roles didn't vanish, people stopped playing them. Yet in the end, more often than not, every group still fares better with, A high HP AC, a skill spec, a arcane/utility user, and a healer. Just look at all the threads on how people and DM's have to change their style just because one of thoseroles isn't present.
last I checked, 4e doesn't.
combinations dwarf those available in 4e.
I can't do that in 4e
I appreciate your limiting of the 4E turnaround, but everyone of your points effectively extolled the virtues of PF without necessitating the inclusion about 4E.
Posting positives you have with PF is certainly sufficient enough without needing to mention what you don't like about 4E. The idea is if we can mention the positives, they sell themselves, any negatives about a 4E player's game of choice tends to make them not hear your good points.
The Storyteller is one of my favourite systems, i think it does a lot of things really well, but it has issues.
'The story teller system is terrible at dealing with combat in anything but the most abstract and cinematic of manners, and that is why i prefer 4e, if i am going to be running a game where combat is an important element of the game, rather than just a threat.'
My choice of pathfinder over 4E is equally based upon weaknesses in 4e, that lead to me seeing it as a less viable system for character driven role-playing. The weaknesses are reliant, which is why I mention them, especially as this is compare and contrast thread.
If the original poster can't take critism of his system of choice and believes despite evidence to the contrary that their system of choice is perfect, I don't think the problem is me pointing out one of two elements that said system does badly, doesn't do at all, or just does less well.
+1. Considered one of the strength of Paizo: the personal involvement by the staff. Can't wait to test the Magus!
"There's only one nelwyn in Angwyn peck. Only one in whole world, and that be the Magus!" - jailor from Chris Claremont's Shadow Moon (adaption and sequel to Willow) interrogating Thorn Drumheller.
That's what I think of every time I see magus being used for that upcoming class.
===
There is a great deal of fun one can have off a grid. For starters messing with the environment can become a sporting pass time for both GMs and Players. I have not read through the 4e books as close as I likely should when talking about it... however in Pathfinder and legacy 3.5 the various guidelines for objects and breaking them lends itself to fun things. (Enlarged chicken carpet-bombing?)
Personally one of my favorites is the Paladin of the Blessed Chair in Hell. This uses Pathfinder's Catch Off-Guard feat to customize a Paladin so he can use any piece of furniture as a weapon and then use his Bond to empower it. Say for example he is escaping from hell, he can grab and bless a formerly devilish chair and begin smiting the fiends. This combines both improvised weapons and making creative use of your character's environment, the mental image is just to funny.
The good chunk of Pathfinder customization comes from feat selection and from options/choices in the class. Take the Pathfinder Fighter. The basic structure of the class is laid fairly simple but can produce a very wide array of character types. Not all of which fall into a set category the 4e describes things. You can build a Tank (dedicate feat selection to increasing AC), an Archer (focus on Dex over Str or Con, and may look more like a 4e ranged Striker), Two-Handed fighters who focus on dealing large amounts of damage, Two-weapon fighters who focus on multiple attacks and critical hits, or even a mounted fighter. Then there are the Combat Maneuver fighters who spend their feats on things like Trip and Bull Rush.
|
|
And if you look at almost every strand of roleplaying, it has evolved away from that. Role had come to refer to the taking on the role of your character. This was even true of DnD by the launch of 3.0 . The class role did not reappear in a big way until MMO'.That is incorrect. In 3.0, how gone were they?
Who had high HP and AC? Warriors
Who had attack/utility spells? Arcane
Who had healing covered? Divine
Who managed skills? RogueThe role filled only changed with the dynamic that any class can multiclass into any other. And in all the years I played 3.x (that is all of them since it came out) with all the different people I played with (no small amount, having been in the Army and players come and go all the time) the tendency was that roles slowly vanished. Why? Because people made PC's that filled every role so they could lone wolf and not need anyone else to be able to accomplish anything. The roles didn't vanish, people stopped playing them. Yet in the end, more often than not, every group still fares better with, A high HP AC, a skill spec, a arcane/utility user, and a healer. Just look at all the threads on how people and DM's have to change their style just because one of thoseroles isn't present.
Interesting. Can see the point. The way I interpreted Zombieneighbours' response was the roles were more formalized with the advent of 4th edition. Which is fine and gives the game its own flavor.
|
|
The good chunk of Pathfinder customization comes from feat selection and from options/choices in the class. Take the Pathfinder Fighter.
Yah. And coming from the other direction, the 4e fighter's "powers" do allow for quick builds and result in multiple effects that could take a Pathfinder PC multiple feats to accomplish. Both fulfill their system's unique design and gaming philosophies, which make them fun!
And if you look at almost every strand of roleplaying, it has evolved away from that. Role had come to refer to the taking on the role of your character. This was even true of DnD by the launch of 3.0 . The class role did not reappear in a big way until MMO'.That is incorrect. In 3.0, how gone were they?
Who had high HP and AC? Warriors
Who had attack/utility spells? Arcane
Who had healing covered? Divine
Who managed skills? RogueThe role filled only changed with the dynamic that any class can multiclass into any other. And in all the years I played 3.x (that is all of them since it came out) with all the different people I played with (no small amount, having been in the Army and players come and go all the time) the tendency was that roles slowly vanished. Why? Because people made PC's that filled every role so they could lone wolf and not need anyone else to be able to accomplish anything. The roles didn't vanish, people stopped playing them. Yet in the end, more often than not, every group still fares better with, A high HP AC, a skill spec, a arcane/utility user, and a healer. Just look at all the threads on how people and DM's have to change their style just because one of thoseroles isn't present.
Yes, multi-classing was a major element of the move away in DnD, but between feats, skills and spells, all characters could fill other roles. Rogues could be the frontline fighter, wizards and fighters could be the ‘sneaky guy’, and clerics could be the main caster.
Moreover, once you introduced multiclassing and prestige classes, the boundries broke down almost entirely. Certainly there where still trends, but if you played a cleric, that didn’t mean you where the ‘healing guy’. Just like if you played a malkavian in vampire there was a strong chance you where a mad seer, but you could almost as easily be the raving psychotic with the specialisation in murder by car throwing.
Darnit, how do I post a picture on here? Lost my whole post trying to do it.
EDIT: the point is, people keep saying 4E's not D&D, when it's closer to 1st and 2nd than 3.x is, yet they fanboi over 3.x.