|
I fail to understand how is 4E supposed to be low magic.
I am not suggesting that 4e could or could not do low magic, but one aspect of the system that may facilitate low magic better than 3.5 of PF is that AC scales as you level up just as attack bonus does. Therefore you are not as reliant on magical armour as 3.5/PF (though the foes at higher levels are likely built with the assumption you will have some magical armour).
|
|
At level 30 you run around on foot and kill level 30 bandits in the forest.
Sure in the latter case you'll be decked out with magic items, but in terms of things that do anything other than scale up your numbers? Forget about it. They're either impossible to obtain or so impractical they might as well be impossible.
Really? A Magic Carpet is a level 20 item, a level 20 item is suggested as being one of the treasures parcels for a level 16 party.
Now I am not familiar with loads of magcial items in 4e, but I can't believe that magic items that do significanlty more than scale up your numbers are impossible or impractical to gain.
At level 30 I believe you're meant to be fighting demi gods on other planes of existance, not chasing epic level bandits around a forest.
|
One reason that Pathfinder wins against every system out there: It has, hands down, the best support material.
After trying 4th edition and being really dissatisfied with the quality of the writing and flavor in their supplements and adventures, I was turned off of the game.
From Adventure Paths to the campaign setting, Paizo consistently and frequently release high quality support material. I rarely have time to run homebrew campaigns so this is a godsend, and because they release smaller books frequently I can pick and choose what I want expanded info on.
1. Didn't care for the direction that Wizards took D&D with in 4E, at all. Bad rule decisions, bad content decisions, 4E is not the same game at all to me anymore. It feels like the Marketing Department took over. Too much like taking World of Warcraft video game rules and porting them over to D&D. WoW is a fun video game, but many of its rules are intended for a _video_ game, where a computer is basically the DM and there is no room for the incredible level of realism, character interaction, roleplaying, plot depth, and flexibility that pen and paper D&D (make that PATHFINDER) allows.
2. Pathfinder is 3.5E the way it should have been. And even several steps further.
3. Incredibly good writing skills and ideas from the Paizo group, with a strong sense of common sense and game balance that appeals to mature gamers.
4. Fantastic adventure paths.
5. Books in PDF form, including free updates when errata is included.
6. The great number of fans that Pathfinder has attracted means finding a group is getting easier and easier, and those who play the game often have the same mindset about what they like about Pathfinder and don't like about 4E.
Can you both guys get a room ? Not that the argument is invalid, but it's somewhat irrelephant to the thread.
Coolest typo ever.
|
|
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
[...]
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
Out of interest, why are you trying to decide between just 4e and PF? Are you looking for a particular type of game that means you have narrowed it down to just these two? Have you considered other games such as FATE in the shape of Legends of Anglerre for fantasy? Or how about Savage Worlds with Hellfrost (I hear good things about it)?
I am just trying to examine why you feel the choice is just between 4e and PF, because although you said you didn't want to start a "4E vs PFRPG thread" it seems that that is exactly the type of thread you need if you are making the choice between the two.
What do you hope to get out of a fantasy game and what sort of things do you not like, if we know that we can perhaps give you some advice and feedback that may help you personally to make a choice (as opposed to just shouting out why we like one over the other).
|
|
There is a difference between discussing the pros and cons of each and starting an edition war. He doesn't want the latter. I am doing the former.Can you both guys get a room ? Not that the argument is invalid, but it's somewhat irrelephant to the thread.Thread: Why did you choose Pathfinder (as opposed to 4E)?
Discussion: Drawbacks of 4E.
Relevancy obtained.
Phrase.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread.Irrelephant-cy reobtained.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
He's not asking for pros and cons. He's asking for pros. Your discussion of problems with 4e would be better suited to the 4e section of the boards if you really wish to discuss it. Please, take it there if that is what you wish to discuss. You'll also find a number of posters there who could better help you explore the issues you have with 4e.
|
Is Amri the woman holding that giant sized cricket bat of a sword? If so, yes, that is the type of artwork I find cartoony but I understand that others like that, it just not for me.
I just want to point out, while you are entitled to your opinion, I cant help but think you might be thinking this is cartoony for the wrong reasons. You may or may not be aware of the background of the Amiri, the PF barbarian iconic. She is NOT just using a big cartoony sword ala Cloud from FF7. There is an actual, detailed background reason she has that sword. And she does not use it without penalty, ala Cloud from FF7. She takes the proper, game-play mechanical penalties for wielding such a large sword, and the background even states she can't use it properly unless she is raging. Basically, if you aren't familiar with her background, she was sent on a suicide mission by her tribe to kill a giant to prove her worth, not expected to come back. She found a dead giant, took its sword, and had her revenge, then fled her lands. The sword has great meaning to her. In this context, I just do NOT agree with this as being cartoony. If it were a Cloud situation, where she just has this gigantic sword for the sake of having one, then yes, you have a case for it being cartoony.
|
|
I just want to point out, while you are entitled to your opinion, I cant help but think you might be thinking this is cartoony for the wrong reasons. [...] If it were a Cloud situation, where she just has this gigantic sword for the sake of having one, then yes, you have a case for it being cartoony.
I was vaguely aware that there was a backstory for this, though I did not know the details, TBH I do not even know any of the names of the "iconics", but backstory or not, this is a piece of art that I was appreciating as just that a picture, a piece of art. And in that instance I imagine it is exactly like Cloud (though I have no clue who Cloud is!) - I see a picture of a woman with an unfeasibly large weapon that to me looks unrealistic to the point of being cartoony.
Seriously, this is my opinion, I am entitled to it - if I feel it is cartoony then to me it is, just like other people may hate some art and others love it.
Anyway, back on topic...
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
I had played 2nd ed long ago, and more recently had started playing a 1st ed campaign with a group.
I wanted to DM my own game and decided to try out either 4th ed or pathfinder. Im a software developer and love open source code, and the idea of an open game licenses peaked my interest.
After looking at play examples of both there were just a number of things in 4th ed that rubbed me the wrong way, infact before i decided on pathfinder it was in my mind 3.5e vs 4e vs pathfinder, then it was 3.5e vs Pathfinder and pathfinder not only seemed to make more sens, the pdfs and books were stunningly well done.
Now i play I DM one pathfinder game, play another and still occasionally pay the 1st ed one.
I have a few core 4.0 books. I've played it a little. It's definitely not a bad game from the perspective of mechanics and balance. And it seems like it would ultimately be something I would have played if I didn't play 2/3.X.
However, I've been corrupted by 2/3.X and I can't move on to a completely different system that abandons the mechanical past entirely. My players are pretty satisfied with Pathfinder, and I'm going to continue to support it.
Sometimes it is just better to improve something that exists instead of starting from scratch. That's not true all the time, but in this case, I think it's true. . .
Chief Technical Officer
|
The only complaint that I've had is that they removed the lovely complicated experience system I knew and loved. Luckily for me (and my lower leveled players) there doesn't seem to be any problem using the old system.
Wizards' XP system was not released as open content, so we *had* to invent our own. We're happy with what we came up with, though!
|
The only complaint that I've had is that they removed the lovely complicated experience system I knew and loved. Luckily for me (and my lower leveled players) there doesn't seem to be any problem using the old system.Wizards' XP system was not released as open content, so we *had* to invent our own. We're happy with what we came up with, though!
And it's a better system.
|
|
It's just that none of them really do anything but get your numbers up, whereas a 3.5 character would at least have a few non numerical abilities.
While I can agree many do provide bonuses to stats you already have, I think it is perhaps overstating things to say that "none of them really do anything but get your numbers up".
Magic items in the PHB alone can allow you to become insubstantial, walk on water, fly, become invisible, teleport, walk up walls, disappear from the world for a round, have a feather that can become a boat, have a flying carpet, portable hole or animated rope.
The only complaint that I've had is that they removed the lovely complicated experience system I knew and loved. Luckily for me (and my lower leveled players) there doesn't seem to be any problem using the old system.Wizards' XP system was not released as open content, so we *had* to invent our own. We're happy with what we came up with, though!
I like the concept of the character leveling up and how that impacts multi classing. At lv 12 it was nothing to take 1 level in another class in the wizards system, this way seems to make more sense to me thematically.
|
Wow, thanks for all the replies, again. Ive heard a lot of good opinions.
And, because it was asked I'll say that the reason I am choosing between Pathfinder and 4E is because to me for some reason when I think rpg I think D&D, and hence 4e and Pathfinder. All of the other games I have come across, to me, seem like "those other games."
I think I should mention also that I have made my decision, and consequently, bought a few new books. I have chosen Pathfinder.
Why:
"DISCLAIMER! I HAVE NOT PLAYED EITHER GAME, MY DECISION IS BASED ON RESEARCH AND FORUM LURKING, HENCE SOME OF MY OPINIONS MAY BE SKEWED OR WRONG. DON'T HANG ME FOR IT."
1) While I love the idea of miniature, it is one thing that draws me to rpg games, after my research and forum lurking 4E dose seem like it has become more of a game focused on miniatures, or is moving in that direction toward a board game. Hero quest was fun though.
2) I have gotten the idea that Pathfinder is grittier, or more realistic.
3) RULES! Pathfinder has only 3 core books at the moment. 4E has 7, and those 7 are not all up to date, they have been eratta'd to death. Now essentials is coming out, more books. I have found out those books will not replace any of the earlier books. Meaning more to buy. Just way to many rules books and rules changes over there.
4) Related to number 3. The business practice of Wizards is not appealing to me.Its almost like they change the rules for the sake of printing more books to sell. I just like Paizo as a business more.
5) when I think about Pathfinder I immediately begin to think about my character, and his story. I get images of him all geared up on his way to glory. It seems to inspire me more than 4E. When I think about 4E I do not seem to get the same feeling. 4E seems like more of a game to me, were Pathfinder seem like more of an adventure I get to write and act in.
So there you have it. I have chosen. I have the advanced players guide, the game mastery guide and DM screen on the way. Now I just need to buy a pdf version for community use and find some friends who want to learn the game.
Thanks for all you replies and opinions. Fee free to keep this thread going. I enjoy reading it.
Thanks!
I think I should mention also that I have made my decision, and consequently, bought a few new books. I have chosen Pathfinder.
Welcome to the game!
Up until Age of Worms appeared in Dungeon magazine, we were playing a home-made hybrid of 1st edition D&D on a Victory Games James Bond 007 chassis, which was the closest thing to a decent game system we could synthesize. Switched to 3.5 specifically because Age of Worms was too cool not to play "straight out of the box," as it were.
Real problems with 3.5 became glaringly apparent in "Savage Tide." Specifically, the barbarian went from great character at 1st level to useless rubbernecker at 15th. Indeed, more than once someone stopped play to ask, "why do they even have non-casters in 3rd edition?"
Pathfinder sadly didn't fix any of that at all, which is why my home game uses a pseudo-Pathfinder-like homebrew system. Now I pick and choose Adventure Path modules to convert to the new system, and all is well.
Paizo's strength, and the strength of the Pathfinder system, are in what Paizo does best -- adventure paths. The system mechanics aren't the main draw.
Paizo's strength, and the strength of the Pathfinder system, are in what Paizo does best -- adventure paths. The system mechanics aren't the main draw.
...and yet it seems that mechanics are rapidly becoming, if they've not already become, Paizo's biggest source of profit. Which does not bode well, imho.
|
|
I've heard you mention these rules many times. Do you have an email address you could send them from? I am reluctant to post my own email address on these boards given the number of people who make a habit of antagonizing me at every turn.
I have them here, at least until next year. These files are slightly out of date, but Kirth hasn't made too many changes since then to my knowledge. If you don't mind deleting out my Shackled City stuff and other junk, the link to download them all at once works very well.
I've heard you mention these rules many times. Do you have an email address you could send them from? I am reluctant to post my own email address on these boards given the number of people who make a habit of antagonizing me at every turn.
Be aware that, while buffing the melees substantially, they still require a "gentleman's agreement" not to break the game. We made practical (common-sense) optimization easier, but there are still myriad loopholes that can be exploited (as is inevitable in any complex system). That said, send me a note at
One thing -- any comments, fixes, etc. are very greatly appreciated. Destructive playtesting so that I can catch the more glaring problems would be even better. My feelings will not be hurt. We've so far playtested with two different groups up to 5th level and liked them so far, but at 10th is where I was hoping to see things shift a bit from 3.5.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
I chose Pathfinder because it felt right to me. I grew up on the old school red/blue/teal/black/gold sets of D&D. Then me and my group went off to separate colleges. So our group died. I stopped playing D&D till I met my now wife. She had been playing 3.0, then 3.5 with friends back home and then with a different group in our old home town.
She found out I had been playing and wanted to get me back into it. Kind of a 'do something together' thing. So i read the 3.0 and then the 3.5 core books and we joined a nice group playing 3.5. We bought more 3pp and WotC books to add to the game and campaigns as we saw fit.
The change came and we didn't know what to do. We'd seen the GenCon videos where the crowd was less than receptive (IMO). So we were apprehensive. We got copies of the 4e books and started to read through them. It didn't feel like D&D to me. I wasn't getting that old feeling I did playing 3.5. There were too many things that made it feel like WoW and seem like WoW, except on paper. My group also had copies and started reading through them. They had similar feelings and concerns.
Paizo had the beta test going on. So I read that. I created an account here on the boards. I followed it. Got a sense of how it felt. It had that old feeling I had when I was a kid.
My group was following it too. We all had the beta somehow. We all had preorders of the Core book. We all felt that Pathfinder was how we were going to continue to play. We'd had issues with 3.5 rules, we'd house ruled where needed, but didn't like the mechanics. We felt that the mechanics of Pathfinder were going to suit our needs, work for us and our understanding (no more 10 minutes stops to figure out grappling or trips).
I dug into the Golarion setting, supported by the Pathfinder rules. To me, Golarion is my Greyhawk or FR. I never quite got into those settings. But I am with Golarion and Pathfinder.
That's why I went with Pathfinder over 4e.
A big ol' bunch of feelings.
Simply put:
4th Edition is like World of Warcraft. Every class is doing the same rolls. use best stat and boost damage and use another good stat for defence. the chicks look pixelized
Pathfinder feels similar to 3,5 on steroids, and the chicks look anime style
:P
Paizo want your opinions on your game, and naturally some of your money.
WotC want your money.
I removed a post. Harassment is against our messageboard policies.
|
|
I am a fan of both 4E and PF yet find myself wanting to run and play PF more despite its' flaws. Not sure if it is a flavor issue or just tired of a the new edition feeling every few years. Still when it comes to running games imo 4E has PF beat.
And guys stop it with the Paizo does not want your money nonsense. Of course they want your money. Last time I checked Paizo is not a non-profit organization. Second like every other company on the market they ahve employees and bills to pay. Third if your going to start a new business without thinking of making a profit don't it will fail. Fourth every company including this one wants to make a profit. Anyone from the company that says otherwise is trying to make points withe fanbase. To think otherwise is purposefully being naive. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing "they just want to make money of us". Would you prefer they not and go under instead.
I understand not like certain things that a company does but saying that they want to make money and be profitable is a flaw when your living in the world largest capitalist market is strange to say the least.
|
|
And, because it was asked I'll say that the reason I am choosing between Pathfinder and 4E is because to me for some reason when I think rpg I think D&D, and hence 4e and Pathfinder. All of the other games I have come across, to me, seem like "those other games."
That is very interesting, I just see D&D as one of many RPGs (although it is my favourite at the moment), indeed I only bought into D&D with 3.5 despite having been roleplaying now for 20+ years.
I would still suggest checking out some other RPGs when you get the chance, some are very cheap (Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition is $9.99 and Mongoose Traveller Pocket Rulebook is fairly cheap).
I think I should mention also that I have made my decision, and consequently, bought a few new books. I have chosen Pathfinder.
Cool! I hope you enjoy the game and have made the best choice (I wouldn't necessarily say the right choice, because both games are good and so neither is a "wrong choice" IMHO.
Out of interest, did you post a similar thread in the WotC 4e forums asking the reverse question? If so would you mind posting a link as I would be interested to read it.
It sounds like you have plenty to get you going and the APG has particularly been getting good word of mouth (even making me take a look at it again to see if it may be useful in a 3.5 game).
|
|
Out of interest, did you post a similar thread in the WotC 4e forums asking the reverse question? If so would you mind posting a link as I would be interested to read it.
It sounds like you have plenty to get you going and the APG has particularly been getting good word of mouth (even making me take a look at it again to see if it may be useful in a 3.5 game).
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26018893/Why_did_you_choo se_Dungeons_and_Dragons_4th_edition?pg=1
Here is the link to the topic I made over on the 4E boards.
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
I didn't necessarily choose Pathfinder so much as it was introduced to me. I had been out of the gaming loop for a year or and was invited to join a new group. We discussed our options and Pathfinder won out. I'd had an opportunity to look at the beta rules beforehand and I did like what I saw.
Having completed one campaign (Second Darkness) and starting a new one (Kingmaker), I have to say that I'm glad PF fell in my lap. It's a great system that uses the core rules of one I already know.
PF is as good as advertised, play a single class all the way to 20th level and have a great time doing it.
Figured I would jump in (albeit a tad late)
The big thing that it came down to was how both companies treated "me" per se.
When 4th edition was announced they spoke of 3d dungeons on my computer, specific party roles, more streamlined and homogenized combat and a lot of things that myself, and many other gamers didn't want. and Any time this came up it really felt to me like wizards was saying "yes you do." It also felt like they were telling me how to play my game, with their "points of light" campaign structure, it seemed like the game wasn't designed to run the things I wanted to run any more.
WotC further alienated me with two moves, Nuking the Forgotten Realms, at the time my favorite setting, and cancelling Dungeon and Dragon Magazine (I was already an avid Paizo fan)
So that's why I dropped Wizards,
Paizo, and in turn Pathfinder got me because they very obviously care about their players, about what we want and the kind of games we like to play. The also understand that we all do not want to play the same game and have, in my opinion, given a system and a setting and allow that to happen.
But what has actually kept me around, and is an extension of that point, is the community. Paizo has a community of fans that hasn't gotten weaker, but stronger or the 5 years I've been a part of it. One of the ways I've noticed this, weird as it may sound, is piracy.
Now before I go further two things, I don't want to start a debate on the morals of piracy, overall I think its wrong, but I've downloaded a few songs in my day. I do want to say however that I do not, will not and I never will pirate something from Paizo.
My point is that if you go on to a filesharing site and type in "4e dark sun campaign setting" to pick a newer product wizards has put out, you will most likely be able to find a PDF of it, even though WotC hasn't put it out on PDF.
The same can't be said for a Pathfinder product. Which really reflects on our community as gamers, the system and company have a lot more support, and for lack of a better word, protection than the average company can expect when a large chunk of your demographic is between the ages of 16 and 36, and often still at that point where they don't have a large disposable income.
There's lots more I can say, but this is just something that I realized a while ago and that I thought was pretty cool, and spoke highly of how much Paizo's fanbase cares for their success.
Pathfinder is no more continuing the tradition of Gygax's AD&D than 4th edition is. 3.5/Pathfinder is just as completely alien to the concepts of classic D&D or AD&D.
Not to edition war, but I don't think this is true at all.
At it's core, old-school D&D is trying to strike an uneasy balance between being simulationist (that is, the game models reality in the sense that its physics etc. work as you would expect, plus the addition of magic) and being a fun and balanced game. There's a section in one of the 2nd edition core books, I believe the DMG, about striking that balance in the rules and in your own game.
You can see a lot of this in 1st edition -- things like the weapon vs. armor hit charts, or the table you would roll on each week to see if your character got the flu.
Even though the roots of D&D are in miniature gaming, I think each succeeding edition has taken a step to some degree towards the game-iness side of that continuum. It's hard to argue 1st edition isn't the heaviest in esoteric rules that try to model the real world.
4E completely gives up on the simulationist half of the continuum in favor of the gamecrafty half. This isn't my opinion -- in addition to being evident in the design, it's something the game's designers have talked about repeatedly. In any case in which they had to choose between making something balanced or make it make sense, they chose balance every time. This results in a game that's extremely well-balanced, but it also results in a game that clearly deviates from one of the big core design assumptions of previous editions.
Ultimately, I think everyone should try both games and pick the one that's fun for them. I think 4E is an excellent game for what it is, and I really have nothing bad to say about it -- it did an excellent job of fixing every flaw of 3.5, it's just that what resulted was not the kind of game that the people I play with were looking for (despite giving 4E a try for a few years before trying PF.)