I didn't choose Pathfinder over 4e D&D any more than I chose it over DC Adventures, Eclipse Phase, HackMaster Basic, Dread, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Smallville, or any other games I am currently, have recently, or will soon play. It's just one of the games I play.
Now why I choose it over 3.5 D&D, that's another story, I guess.
Ok, I'm going to try to do this without ranting. I spent about twenty-five minutes on my first attempt, and no one wants to read that drivel. Brief. Concise. I can do this. *deep breath*
STRIKES AGAINST FOURTH EDITION
1. Errata makes playing from the books impossible.
2. Math mistakes in the AC vs. Attack forces either a feat tax (Paragon Defenses, Weapon Expertise, etc) or a house ruled fix.
3. Players feel restricted by what their powers allow them to do. They've stopped thinking outside of the box. Characters no longer try to disarm opponents, or pin them to the ground, unless their power specifically gives them the ability to. Feels more like a chess game than a role playing game.
4. Players feel they can't make a character without using character builder. Character builder allows too much access to feats and powers that really shouldn't be allowed in the game.
5. Because certain powers are simply better than other powers, a lot of characters will pick the same powers at a certain level. If there is a level 15 melee ranger in your party, he'll certainly have Blade Cascade and Twin Strike. Therefore characters of same class and level will feel the same.
6. WotC did not deliver on pre-release promises of character visualizer, map builders, game table, etc. I paid for DDI and received nothing in return. The DM tools by themselves are severely lacking.
7. Adventures suck. Like, seriously, 4th edition has ZERO good adventures. The adventures also do not adhere to the treasure guidelines presented in the DMG, are linear, and present skill challenges that start to feel like rolling skill checks for no reason. Strict adherence to formatting forces writers to include fluff to fill up space, or to remove descriptions and flavor if there is not enough space.
8. Skill challenges actually hurt role playing. If you're not trained in the right skills you either don't participate, aid another, or hurt your party. Crossing a desert, or talking to a major NPC starts to feel wooden, and if the fighter opens his mouth the group will hate the player for playing.
9. Rulebooks are cartoony.
10. NPCs and monsters abide by rules foreign to the players. Some monsters have auto-hit auras that daze if you're in them. Some do auto-damage. Their more powerful abilities can often recharge. Their defenses are calculated by level and role, not by what they're wearing or how "defensive" they are.
11. The minion mechanic makes little sense. First level wizard with auto-hit Magic Missile can kill high level demon minions all day. Fighter with a rock can bring down ogre minions. No substance to them.
12. Rituals take forever to cast. Wizards are completely combat oriented now. Knock goes from being a decent spell in 3.5 to being a waste of ten minutes. Traps suffer from the same fate. Rogues don't disarm traps in combat, as it would be all they do during the encounter. Traps now are just beat to death with a stick until they stop being a trap.
13. The new races don't fit in well with pre-established campaign worlds. How are you going to just introduce the Dragonborn or the Shardminds into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk. Speaking of Forgotten Realms, what the hell did you do, Wizards?
14. On topic, campaign material is released in threes, and then the campaign is forever forgotten. The campaign guides are a pale imitation of what they were in 3.x.
15. Healing between combats and power recharging takes five minutes of short rest. If another level appropriate encounter bumps into the party in that five minutes, they're going to die (or be extremely hard pressed as they no longer have encounter powers).
16. Did I mention extremely poor multi-classing mechanic that forces you to take four feats, or the extremely broken hybrid mechanic which has come under heavy errata due to unexpected consequences? Hard to play the characters you visualize.
IN FAVOR OF PATHFINDER
1. Proven system.
2. Adventure paths! Well written, lots of support, very interesting. Players have loved every session and for the first time since I started DMing five or six years ago, they want to have 11-12 hour sessions once a month, in addition to our normal six hour Sunday group. They show up on time. They pitch in for snacks. They're buying their own rule books. I've never seen anything like it.
3. No massive rules' errata.
4. Flexibility in both character creation and combat encounters. Players don't feel limited to a set power list.
5. Paizo's staff listens. They post on the messageboards. They're approachable. I feel like they care.
6. Books are incredible quality. Though pricey, it's a real value compared to other RPG books I've purchased. Great art, too.
7. Default campaign setting is best I've seen. Very gritty, very real. Lots of material for it as well, with new stuff coming out every month. Makes running a game in Golarion a snap.
8. Combat system is streamlined. CMB and CMD are great ideas. No questions on grapple for the first time ever.
... that wasn't quite as concise as I wanted to be.
AC and Attack bonuses scale nicely without requiring a magic item Christmas tree for a character.
I'm pretty sure there's a passage in the 4E DMG that specifically says characters need to have magic items X, Y, and Z at these levels to keep up.
Maybe we have different ideas of what constitutes a Christmas tree?
I will give you that 4E is designed on the idea that, in the vast majority of cases, a single character can't hit another level-appropriate character more than about half the time, no matter what each character is, and it pretty well does hit that mark. That seemed like a good idea to me when I first read it, but in play it really bogged down combat to me.
I could go through the list of martyrn's complaints about 4E and disprove nearly every one of them. Basically, it comes down to personal preference.
Then allow me to nitpick:
If it comes down to personal preference, you cannot disprove martyrn's complaints. What you can do is offer a rebuttal with with your own assessment.EDIT: The whole "prove" "disprove" thing is the stuff edition wars are made out of.
I don't know how anyone can talk about AC and magic item bonuses as if they're not more important in 4th.
Consider this:
Level 1 monster attacks at say a +6 vs. AC. Typical fighter might have an 18 AC at level 1.
Level 16 monster is now attacking at a +21 vs. AC. Without magic items (and the increased potency of masterwork materials for AC), your same fighter probably has a 28/29 AC.
NAD defenses are worse. Since you can only increase two NADs due to ability scores, one NAD defense will suffer greatly. A level 1 monster might be attacking at +4 vs. a NAD defense, but a level 16 will be attacking at +19. Without a +3 or +4 neck slot item, as well as feat support to boost these defenses, the monster might only need to roll a 5 to hit your lowest defense, and a 10 to hit your highest.
Take a human fighter with an 18 level 1 STR, and a Wis of 14. He'll have a 17 Fort and a 13 Will (I think). At level 16 the fighter will have:
10 + 6 (str) + 2 (fighter) + 1 (human) + 8 (half level) for a 27 Fort (the monster needs to roll an 8 to hit the highest defense) and 10 + 2 (wis) + 1 (human) + 8 (half level) for a 21 Will. The monster just needs to roll anything but a 1 to hit his Will defense. This character is forced to take a neck slot item and spend a feat to have any shot at a missable will defense. And that's fighting monsters of his level. The higher level you get, the more likely you'll be fighting things two or three levels higher than you, meaning that these things will be hitting you 75% of the time even with magic protective items and feats, and a lot of times triggering effects like Daze or Stun or Weaken (save ends).
Using the character builder, with support feats and magic items, a typical battleaxe based fighter, with a high str/con and wis as a tertiary stat, you're looking at an AC of 27 at level 16, fort 27, reflex 22, and will of 21. With feat support (heavy at that for taking both Iron Will AND Lightning Reflexes), you're not looking much better. Even a +4 magic item, with feat support, you're looking at a 27 Will. You're still fighting monsters that, if they target Will, are going to hit you 60% of the time. More if they're higher level than you are. You need these magic items to stand a chance against certain monsters.
Attacking works the same way. A level 1 fighter with an 18 Str wielding an axe probably attacks at a +7. That's ok as level 1 soldiers have a 16ish AC. At level 16, though:
2 (prof) + 6 (str) + 1 (weapon talent class feature) + 8 (half level) you're looking at attacking at +17. Level 16 soldiers have like a 33ish AC. And you might be fighting several of those in an encounter. Taking a feat gives you an attack of +19. Still need to roll a 14 to hit. You need the magic weapons to make it viable to hit 50% of the time.
Inherent bonuses variant from DMG 2.
Incidentally, I play and enjoy both games :p. It's not that difficult either. 4e I just stick with DDI which, with the character builder and encounter builder and whatnot, means I don't really need to buy books. Pathfinder comes out with books at a far enough pace behind each other that I never really feel like I'm pounding out a lot of money for it.
Best of both worlds
Our group looked at some previews of 4e and Pathfinder to replace the homebrew system we were using and found 4e lacking in depth and flavor. It reads and plays out more like a miniature war game than a roleplaying game. The system of 'powers' is just a step too far into video game/war-gaming land for us, and I feel vancian casting, though flawed, is the best method for casting spells. The races and classes were medicore, and a couple were outright silly. Pathfinder also had great plans for additional rulebooks and so far have greatly exceeded the quality of the 3e core expansions with the APG and Companion series. We are also pleased with the Pathfinder licensed projects, and are using some of LPJ's offering as the basis for our current campaign. If you are looking for a good mini game then go 4e. If you want a great, deep system that's more like 3e, with a commitment to continued high quality releases, I recommend Pathfinder. The Adventure Paths have so far been pretty great too.
TLDR version: Pathfinder just feels more like DnD, with a more polished, modern aesthetic. 4e feels like a game made to pull WoW players into pen and paper.
1. i didnt really like the 4E ideal
2. they outright destroyed my forgotten realms anf golarion has that grey box 1e realms feel
|
I had a whole bunch of reasons why and why not to jump onto Pathfinder. Frankly, throughout the whole 4E debacle I was pretty close to dumping anything D&D in general and moving on to something new in the RPG world.
Then, I came across this little nugget:
Just as a casual observation, anyone who considers the presence of Vancian magic a dealbreaker is probably lost to us, and I'm ok with that.
Personally, I view the pulp fantasy roots of the game as a feature and not a flaw, and I'm glad that there is an edition of the game for people who don't, because that is not a version of the game I am very interested in publishing."
Erik Mona, Publisher,
Paizo Publishing
Just spoke to me. Philosophically it just kind of resonated.
From there, through the APs, the modules, Planet Stories, Tales, etc.. Paizo just keeps proving that they earn my money. Good system, good material, and a good respect for their fans and consumers.
Ya, I'm not blind, I'm sure one day I'll be shocked that they had to make a business decision that feels like "corporate speak"., but as it stands right now, Pathfinder RPG is just one of many things that Paizo does really, really right.
Inherent bonuses variant from DMG 2.
Incidentally, I play and enjoy both games :p. It's not that difficult either. 4e I just stick with DDI which, with the character builder and encounter builder and whatnot, means I don't really need to buy books. Pathfinder comes out with books at a far enough pace behind each other that I never really feel like I'm pounding out a lot of money for it.
Best of both worlds
Bingo on both counts. In fact, I didn't need the advice from DMG 2, 4e is transparent enough that it's pretty easy to figure out. The 3e math is a lot more complex, but the guys that did Trailblazer laid that out, which is pretty cool.
|
Some time ago (before Paizo decided not to support 4E), they asked us which route we'd prefer them to go. Then, my answer was that I didn't care because I was sure they would be able to write awesome adventures and setting products no matter the underlying system.
So when Paizo decided to create their own 3.5 variant instead of supporting 4E, I simply lost any reason to support the new D&D, especially as I consider WotC's setting products and adventures subpar to basically anything they created for 3.5 and Paizo creates for Pathfinder.
Thing is that I'd probably even play 4E if WotC had chosen to support the "old" realms. But I'm simply not interested in their revisions of systems I've come to love some 20 years ago. Though if they'd decide to publish a campaign setting book for their new PoL setting, I'd absolutely be interested. Till then I'm content to play Pathfinder and other, non-D&D related systems.
|
When someone says that 4E is "all about combat", they says so because out of combat rules in 4E... To say it plainly, they suck.
I am not sure I agree with this completely, there seem to be plenty of rules and mechanics for non-combat encounters - social, investigation and exploration, largely in the skill descriptions.
One thing that I initially had an issue with was the lack of skills such as Appraise, Perform, Profession and Craft.
For Appraise I now just use a variety of skills instead - judging the value of a magic item? Use Arcana. Seeing how much an animal is worth? Use Nature. Haggling over the price of an antique? Use History. This isn't so different to how Pathfinder players are dealing with scenarios where the 3.5 Use Rope skill would have been used (e.g. for ships rigging use Profession (Sailor), for climbing related rope work use Climb).
For other skills I took a note out of the Savage Worlds book in the form of Common Knowledges - basically rather than force players to purchase background skills for their characters that will rarely get used, the player simply makes the equivalent of an ability check, and gets a bonus if their background is relevant.
This works nicely for me (and also encourages players to come up with backgrounds!), if I want someone to make a Profession (Sailor) skill to identify the fact that the rigging has been sabotaged I could ask for an Intelligence check (which in 4e is already aided by half level, so a more experienced character has a better chance than a newbie) and then offer a +2 or even +5 bonus to characters with an appropriate background (+2 for being a dock worker or having travelled a lot by ship, +5 for having been a sailor).
In 3.5 and PF as a player I did actually stick a couple of ranks in skills such as Profession (Farmer) but to be honest it was often a waste of skill points as such skill checks were rarely needed and even then I often needed to raise the fact that I would have the skill as the GM wouldn't necessarily expect anyone to have it. In any case I never bothered to put more than a couple of ranks in and I can't imagine many people would max out such a skill.
Skill challenges? Come on.
I never quite get how this is such a big deal, to me Skill Challenges are a framework that GMs can use to provide some structure for non-combat encounters, including investigations, negotiations and chases. However it isn't really an integral set of rules to the game; if you don't like them you don't need to use them.
The only valid complaint against them I guess you could have is that the pages spent describing skill challenges could have been used for other content. I can also perhaps sympathise with published scenarios that specify encounters in terms of skill challenges - if you don't like them you may have to do a bit of work to handle that encounter differently.
Also, the PCs get a ton of powers, but the vast majority of them have no use outside of combat
For magic users I can agree with this to some extent, I have a big problem with the fact that the duration on so many magical items and effects are so limited, for example Save Ends on a Sleep spell means it is unlikley to last more than a few rounds. This means it is not much use out of combat where you want to make the guards sleep so you can drive the horse and cart through the city gate unchallenged.
This problem also extends to magic items like Boots of Spider Climb that only provides an actual climb speed for a single Move action once a day!!!!!
But for non-magic users, Martial Powers seem logical to only be useful in combat. One thing that took me a while to figure out is that Powers are an extra thing for non-magic users over and above the type of stuff they had in 3.5 - Fighters still have skills and feats etc (though I do miss the lack of more combat options such as Disarm and Trip which are now Martial Powers).
So I have some sympathy here, however even for magic users there are other factors. The sort of spells that would in 3.5 be useful outside of combat are now Rituals in 4e. They were deliberately made a bit more expensive and time consuming so that they wouldn't take the spotlight off the other characters - for example in 4e even if your Wizard knows the Knock ritual it is still worth having someone with Theivery around to pick locks as Knock takes 10 minutes and cost 35GP and a healing surge to use.
You need to take into account both powers and rituals to get a balanced view of whether magic in 4e is too combat focused.
Also, interestingly, the introduction of At Will powers in 4e can actually promote roleplaying in some respects - because it allows a player to use a spell or whatever for purely cosmetic roleplaying reasons and not feel they have "wasted" it.
For example when I read the Prestidigitation Wizard Cantrip I immediately had visions of a wizard sitting down at a dimly lit tavern table to meet with a contact and waving his hands to light the candles, startling his contact. If I had done that in 3.5 I would have been expending a valuable Level 0 spell slot that could have been used for Detect Magic or Mage Hand.
That was the first time ever that I wanted to play a Wizard in D&D (I personally am not a fan of Vancian magic and prefer sorcerers in 3.5 and PF) and it was purely down to how the mechanics could enhance my roleplaying. PF has gone some way to provide the same at-will ability in cantrips, but not for spells beyond that. In 4e I have used my Wizard's Thunder Burst At Will attack power to intimidate an angry mob with a display of power without having to worry about having then "lost" that spell.
So, I agree with you to some extent, but 4e does some really nice things too.
Saying that you CAN roleplay in this system is true, but it doesn't mean it's a good system for roleplaying.
Would you argue that Pathfinder is a good system for roleplaying? If so, what mechanics and rules do you feel PF provides that facilitates this that 4e doesn't?
- I don't like the gamist approach that much (e.g. you are heroes, different rules apply to you, guys!). I believe that simulationism makes for a better approach to a game where you act like a character in a fictional world. This works for me and my groups, of course.
That is cool, but I must admit, I appreciate the freedom I get from not feeling I have to build NPCs according to the same rules as PCs in 4e - I can level up monsters without having to explain what equipment, feat or spell allowed for that +2 to the attack bonus etc.
It may not be nice for some players who may feel "cheated" that NPCs can do stuff that their PCs aren't allowed to, but then as soon as a GM in a 3.5 or PF games makes classes or spells or even whole books off limits to players, then the same thing happens.
And while a certain degree of "super-human" is assumed in Pathfinder too, you can always *choose* not to be different, to start as a simple human with a level in Expert. I'm not going to do it, but I feel free to choose. With 4E I can't. You're a hero, that's a minion, it will go down in one shot no matter what. Not for me, thank you.
I can appreciate this, but for me its not that big a deal, in 3.5 I don't think I ever encountered a player who actually wanted to play an NPC class, and I always felt that 1st level HPs were too low (coming from Star Wars d20 RCR where you effectively get extra HPs equal to Con Score) and so I always start 3.5 characters at level 2 or 3. I appreciated the extra HP in 4e.
First of all, I have never played 3.5 or DnD version 4.
I mostly come from a non- DnD background.
I liked it as all the rules were in one large book.
So all you really need to run a complete game is the core rules and as a DM, the Bestiary.
It did come quite highly recommended to me by some friends who play PF as well.
|
|
1. My group had collected a lot of 3.5 stuff that we didn't want to abandon.
2. We loved Paizo's adventure paths and preferred their content to Wizards. These continue to impress - if anything they're getting even better over time.
3. When we saw the Beta, we decided we like it better than 3.5. (Particularly since I have a couple of guys who prefer straight melee classes and the PF Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, and Rogue are all big hits).
4. 4E didn't feel right... probably not a bad a game, but not what we'd be used too.
5. Oh, and the destruction of the Forgotten Realms. We had moved to Ptolus for awhile and were looking for a new world. Most of use grew up reading those books. It's not like we were necessarily going to play there again - but was it really necessary to trash it? It seems like they could have introduced a new world... Golarion isn't necessary for PF, but it's a fun place to visit.
|
|
STRIKES AGAINST FOURTH EDITION
1. Errata makes playing from the books impossible.
This is a big issue especially if you want to run or play in LFR and / or don't use Character Builder. I was actually holding out for a corrected reprinting of the core books but that doesn't look like its going to happen, the closest I got was buying the Deluxe versions that do incorporate some of the rules updates. Also I use Character Builder so power printouts are up to date.
What I donlt like is that rule updates and errata aren't separated - for example Magic Missile was changed back to being Auto Hit for purely nostalgia reason it seems - screw that! I bought 4e, I like the chance to crit and the fact that I need to manouevre for a better shot. So I have stopped upgrading my CB :(
Having said all that if you're happy to ignore the rules updates and play purely by the books you have you can - this is pretty much how I play 3.5 and and other non-d20 games (e.g. Shadowrun) as well. Every so often I may buy an updated printing of the book that incorporates errata and PDFs are usually updated as well - alas for 4e neither of these are options :(
3. Players feel restricted by what their powers allow them to do. They've stopped thinking outside of the box. Characters no longer try to disarm opponents, or pin them to the ground, unless their power specifically gives them the ability to.
Feels more like a chess game than a role playing game.
Again I can agree with this, choice can be a good thing, but in my current campaign the players are still getting to grips with the system and their PC powers and seem a little overwhelmed (a little how I feel when I go into a Starbucks and just wanting a sodding Coffee with milk!!!!!).
The power printouts seem to so focus the players attention that they forget there are other options like Grab and Bullrush (though unfortunately Disarm and Trip are powers only now, unless a GM allows it via page 42).
Rather than look at the battle map and think "what would my character do?" and then determine the rules to do that "that would be a grapple followed by an attempt to move you both" now the powers seem to drive players' strategy.
Its still fun, just a different way to play, hopefully as playes get familiar with 4e and their powers they can start focusing on the game and trying stuff outside of powers - 4e is good in that it offers the famour page 42 for this.
4. Players feel they can't make a character without using character builder. Character builder allows too much access to feats and powers that really shouldn't be allowed in the game.
As has been said you can restrict content - I restrict stuff to just the books I physically own.
CB is great I must admit, especially when levelling up as so many numbers change when you get to an even level (all skills, defences, attacks etc). I must admit I wouldn't like to create a character by hand, though I could do.
Mind you I have similar issues with 3.5 and have spreadsheets for character sheets (I still need to create one for PF) which help carry through updates to abilities and BAB.
5. Because certain powers are simply better than other powers, a lot of characters will pick the same powers at a certain level. If there is a level 15 melee ranger in your party, he'll certainly have Blade Cascade and Twin Strike. Therefore characters of same class and level will feel the same.
I think this will depend on the player - for those who always want to make the optimum character then yes if what you say is true (I haven't played 4e enough to notice any issues other than a Monk power that seems powerful), however many players may prefer to pick powers for flavour reasons or just because what it does is cool.
This is the same for 3.5, despite so many indications that a fighter is a poor choice of class compared to Cleric or druid, I really want to play a fighter with Improved Trip and Disarm because I think those feats are cool. :)
6. WotC did not deliver on pre-release promises of character visualizer, map builders, game table, etc. I paid for DDI and received nothing in return. The DM tools by themselves are severely lacking.
Yes, the Monster builder is great, but I would love to be able to put together maps for Dungeon Tiles and have it tell me how many and of what sets I need (I have every set of DTs).
7. Adventures suck. Like, seriously, 4th edition has ZERO good adventures.
I hear this so much I can only assume it is true :)
8. Skill challenges actually hurt role playing. If you're not trained in the right skills you either don't participate, aid another, or hurt your party. Crossing a desert, or talking to a major NPC starts to feel wooden, and if the fighter opens his mouth the group will hate the player for playing.
I think Skill Challenges need to be created with the party in mind, if no one has Thievery then having a Skill Challenge with that as a primary skill is pointless - a good GM will look to include skills so that everyone can participate, or at least balance it out so that while one PC may sit out one skill check, they should be in the thick of the next one. Of course this could be a problem with published scenarios, but that is one reason I don't use them.
Also I think players may need to be reminded that they can suggest a skill to use - if they can explain how it will help they may be able to use a skill they are good at but one that wasn't immediately obvious as being useful.
I use Skill Challenges as a rough structure for tasks, where a player wants to do something I can always ask them whether they want it to count as one of the tests, if not they don't risk adding a failure, but equally won't add a success, what they might do however is discover a new piece of information that will provide a bonus in subsequent checks, or even reveal new approaches to the challenge (opening up other skills to be used).
I must admit, the errataed Aid Another rules are good in skill challenges because the DC increases in line with the person you are trying to aid (so a 1st level person really can't do anything to aid a 30th level character) and the aiding person runs the risk of providing a penalty to the other character.
This is great for investigations - normally everyone wants to roll Perception but in a skill challenge that could mean 5 rolls and potentially success or failure in a single scene. So instead I ask for a main character who will roll and ask others if they want to aid another. This way everyone can contribute if they want, but have consequences if they do and fail (they clumsily step on clues and destroy evidence etc).
This way if the "fighter opens his mouth" the group won't necessarily hate the player for playing because it won't totally sabotage the challenge just provide a penalty for a single roll.
9. Rulebooks are cartoony.
Lol - I said the same thing about PF :)
11. The minion mechanic makes little sense. First level wizard with auto-hit Magic Missile can kill high level demon minions all day. Fighter with a rock can bring down ogre minions. No substance to them.
I love minion rules in all the games I play (M&M, Star Wars d20 RCR, FATE etc), they may not make sense but then that is the case with many literary and cinematic elements - how come Bond can withstand many blows and win in a fight against several opponents, but get KOed with a single karate chop by Oddjob? The answer is off course that it makes for a better story. Minions are a rule that allows for some of the conceits of the genre. It may not be for everyone, but having that rule available is a good thing IMHO.
12. Rituals take forever to cast. Wizards are completely combat oriented now. Knock goes from being a decent spell in 3.5 to being a waste of ten minutes.
Rituals are meant to take a longer time to cast, that means that the Rogue gets to shine by picking the lock during a combat rather than have the Wizard just flick his wrist and open it. Rituals fix a problem that some people had with spells in 3.5, not everyone felt that was a problem though and so I can see why someone people don't like the solution.
Traps suffer from the same fate. Rogues don't disarm traps in combat, as it would be all they do during the encounter. Traps now are just beat to death with a stick until they stop being a trap.
What makes you say this? I have just looked through a number of traps in the DMG and most have countermeasures that can be done in a single action (deactivating pressure plates etc). A few have skill challenges to totally deactivate them (e.g. Flame Jet) is this what makes you feel it takes the entire encounter to disable the trap for the Rogue? Even then those traps usually have single action means to partially disable it.
Again I guess this is another genre conceit that may not translate well to RPGs for everyone, i.e. heroes fighting off hordes of foes or avoiding danger whilst one of them desperately tries to open a door or disable a trap. I guess if you're the one not fighting the horde but disabling the trap you may not be happy as a player. But for some this scenario can mimic the books and movies
14. On topic, campaign material is released in threes, and then the campaign is forever forgotten. The campaign guides are a pale imitation of what they were in 3.x.
On the other hand I like this, the Eberron books are a pretty good collation of a lot of the 3.5 stuff, and also as someone who likes to have everything for a setting it is an easy collection to complete - horses for courses really - one thing that puts me off Golarion a bit for example is how many books are out there that describe the setting in minute detail.
Now I don't have to use all this I know, but it is still something that makes me think twice about buying into the setting (I call this setting-bloat which is the fluff equivalent of rules-bloat) :)
15. Healing between combats and power recharging takes five minutes of short rest. If another level appropriate encounter bumps into the party in that five minutes, they're going to die (or be extremely hard pressed as they no longer have encounter powers).
Are you saying that healing takes too long in 4e for you? If so I would think Pathfinder wouldn't be your cup of tea where recovering spells and hit points (other than via magical healing) takes a day!
Me personally, I think 4e healing is too quick and prefer 3.5 / PF in this regard.
Thanks for adding to the discussion BTW, you make some interesting points.
|
|
*sigh*
I prefer listing my opinions here and let the others decide their value. I hope everyone sticks to this.
Apologies, I had not yet read that post of yours when I began replying to your earlier post.
As the OP has already made his decision on which game to buy I assumed this thread could be used as a general discussion about the two games and how they are perceived.
I hoped to discuss why you felt the way you did about 4e so I could maybe learn something that would help me in my current and future games (both 4e and PF) and in responding to those same criticisms if any of my players bring them up. However now that I understand you do not wish to enter into such a discussion I will refrain from responding to the counterpoints you make.
|
|
If I were considering PF versus 4e without having the background in 3.5 here are the factors I would take into consideration:
PDFs
[...]
Rules
[...]
Settings
[...]
Art and Layout
[...]
Adventure support
[...]
Further to me earlier post, here is a reason I have chosen to pursue PF again (albeit in addition to 3.5 and 4e):
Organised Play
At conventions the vast majority of PF and 4e games are Organised Play or Living Campaigns, as such if I want to play in a PF or 4e game at conventions it will likely be in the form of Pathfinder Society or Living Forgotten Realms.
I was originally into PFS during season zero, I ran it at Conception and for the local Meetup group, I also played in some sessions and attended the first PaizoCon UK. When it hit season 1 and moved to the Pathfinder RPG I dropped out as I wasn't seeing what the PF RPG could offer me that 3.5 didn't already do.
And so I played in some (but not as much as I would like) Living Forgotten Realms scenarios. I played my first ever D&D Wizard and I did enjoy it. The one thing I didn't like was the lack of a reason for adventurers to join together. I accept a certain level of meta gaming is needed to allow for the conceit of a bunch of strangers playing together that a living campaign requires, but sometimes I was really struggling to come up with reasons why my character would be going along with some characters (especially the annoying ones!)
Also I was never a fan of Forgotten Realms, and although I am not a big fan of Golarion, I prefer it to FR. I also still prefer the 3.x rules (ideally 3.5 but a 3.5 living campaign isn't an option).
So now I am pursuing PF RPG again because I have realised that although I don't think the rules provide enough benefit to warrant me learning all the tweaks and twists form 3.5, the opportunity to play in a 3.x living campaign may be benefit enough to me.
So in the end, for Organised Play at least, I chose PF over 4e because:
1) I prefer the rules 3.x rules to 4e
2) I like the fact that PFS has a reason for everyone to work together (i.e. all being members of the PFS in game)
3) I prefer the Golarion setting to the Forgotten Realms setting.
Of course if WotC ever launch a Living Eberron campaign I would be playing it in a shot! But that seems unlikley now that LFR campaign organisation has gone out of house.
As an aside I also much prefer the Paizo forums than the 4e forums - whilst neither are perfect (these forums eat my posts far too often!) I can at least find my posts again, whereas on the 4e forums they get lost and the search function is crap. Besides, reading about PF RPG rules discussions also helps me with 3.5 rules as I usually double check whether a rule is the same in 3.5 and if not I see how it differed.
That is amusing Mistah Green, and reflects partly what drove me right into Paizo's arms. At the time of the change over from 3e to 4e I was not enjoying the tone or comments coming out of the Wizards development staff. I especially did not enjoy their flippant treatment of Gnomes, oh no sir I did not. Especially when Paizo had the first part of Rise of the Runelords out and the Golarion take on Gnomes, which was an amazing refresh of all the things Gnomes have become over the course of fantasy RPG history. When the section header starts "The Trouble with Gnomes" and I could at the same time look at the Runelords guide all I could do was shake my head and ask, "trouble with gnomes, sure doesn't look like Paizo had trouble with gnomes. I wonder what Wizards problem is?"
Speaking of skill challenges, I find it funny that pulling from the Gamemastery Guide or Cures of the Crimson Thrown AP, you can get Paizo's chase scene rules. Combined with The Gneech's lovely extrapolated tables for "Page 42 for Pathfinder" one can take the chase rules and begin applying them to other kinds of skill "challenges".
Basically I trust both Paizo's adventure writing, subsystem development, and overall thematic choices more then I ever did Wizards. That includes back in 3rd Edition. I also swing fairly hard toward the Simulationist end of the spectrum, unless I'm playing a board game like Descent.
If I want to know the kind of damage a falling chicken can do to things it lands on, and want to be able to account for diseases in the NPC population, its darn helpful to have such guidelines (falling object, object damage/hardness, and disease) available. I have no idea when my Player's will attempt another Fowl Fleet of magically enlarged chicken carpet bombing, but I need to be ready with something that at least seems consistent the rest of the world. I know Pathfinder can handle situations like that (and better then 3.5 can with the way the disease rules were improved).
Especially when Paizo had the first part of Rise of the Runelords out and the Golarion take on Gnomes, which was an amazing refresh of all the things Gnomes have become over the course of fantasy RPG history. When the section header starts "The Trouble with Gnomes" and I could at the same time look at the Runelords guide all I could do was shake my head and ask, "trouble with gnomes, sure doesn't look like Paizo had trouble with gnomes. I wonder what Wizards problem is?"
You know, I've never liked gnomes (thematically) but I really like Paizo's take on them.
|
|
I am not saying Skill Challenges are perfect but...
Get everyone involved!
A worthy goal. But wait a minute, Skill Challenges don't do that, do they? Indeed, since any failure on the team counts against the team's failure numbers, anyone who isn't the half elf diplomancer or bullysaurus who so much as opens their mouth during a social encounter
Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action. You know what skills your player characters are good at, so make sure to include some chances for every character to shine.
[...]
When a player participates in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it.
Basically Skill Challenges should ideally be written so that everyone does have a relevant skill to participate, but I admit in published scenarios this could be an issue.
Also players can try to roll a skill they are good with, as long as they can give a reason why it should work. So perhaps a Wizard could use Arcana to do some scrying to show what terrible things the future may hold should the baron fail to agree to the PCs' request.
Be Dynamic!
Cool concept, right? Doing all kinds of different stuff on a round by round basis. Why doesn't it work out? Well, he reason that never happens is because the difference in a Bullysaurus' Intimidate bonus and his Heal check is generally more than +/-10. That means that even if next round you find out that another skill is two steps easier than your focus skill (and remember kids: there are only three difficulty steps), you're still better off just using your focus skill again. It's not even a question. If your focus skill could work at all, you just use it next round without fail.
If a player wants to use a skill you didn’t identify
as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is usually moderate or hard. The use of the skill might win the day in unexpected ways, but the risk is greater as well. In addition, a secondary skill can never be used by a single character
more than once in a challenge.
So, if a character's Focus skill is a primary skill of the challenge, then yes he may as well just keep spamming it - so admittedly dynamism isn't achieved here. However if a character's focus skill is not a primary skill, he can only use it once anyway (and it would be at a higher DC). So a character without great scores in any primary skill will have reason to use a different skill each turn (as secondary skills).
End Binary!
Another worthy goal. But um... it totally is binary
This I agree with (though I would like to know what was omitted with simply the word "Stuff" (I assume the original quite had more).
So it may have failed in this design goal, but for me what skill challenges do is not having an important decision point in the story rely on a single die roll - with a skill challenge you can afford a couple of failures and still succeed, its a little more robust than a single die roll.
Other Difficulties
Yep, they seem to keep changing DC again and again :( Not good! Essentials at least gives Easy, Moderate and Hard DCs for every level rather than every 3 levels.
Also the method for altering the challenge level is just wrong according to the DMG
For an easier or a harder challenge, use DCs from
the row that corresponds to a lower or a higher level, and assign the challenge’s level as the midpoint of that level range. For example, if designing an easier challenge for an 8th-level party, you could use the DCs from the “Level 4–6” row. That would adjust the challenge’s
level to 5th.
If you use easy DCs, reduce the level of the challenge by one. If you use hard DCs, increase the level of the challenge by two.
So let me get this right?
A skill challenge with a base DC of 12 is a level 5 challenge (as 12 is Moderate DC for levels 4 to 6).
So if I lower the DC to 7 (Easy DC for levels 4 to 6) it becomes a level 4 challenge?
But if I start with a DC 10 its a level 2 challenge (Moderate DC for levels 1 to 3)???????? How can a DC10 Skill Challenge be level 2 but DC 7 be level 2????
That piece of the DMG is b~%+~~!s! :) Easy DCs reduce the level by around 9 levels and hard DCs increase it around 7 to 8 levels. This might be resolved by the Essentials DC table so you can simple use a single level lower Moderate DC.
|
|
Speaking of skill challenges, I find it funny that pulling from the Gamemastery Guide or Cures of the Crimson Thrown AP, you can get Paizo's chase scene rules. Combined with The Gneech's lovely extrapolated tables for "Page 42 for Pathfinder" one can take the chase rules and begin applying them to other kinds of skill "challenges".
That's interesting because Spycraft 2nd ed's conflict system apparentlty derived from the 2st ed Chase rules too :)
I have no idea when my Player's will attempt another Fowl Fleet of magically enlarged chicken carpet bombing,That is a wonderful image! Did your players really try this?
Speaking of skill challenges, I find it funny that pulling from the Gamemastery Guide or Cures of the Crimson Thrown AP, you can get Paizo's chase scene rules. Combined with The Gneech's lovely extrapolated tables for "Page 42 for Pathfinder" one can take the chase rules and begin applying them to other kinds of skill "challenges".That's interesting because Spycraft 2nd ed's conflict system apparentlty derived from the 2st ed Chase rules too :)
It's a rather basic skill conflict system. When you start looking at it from a numbers game stand point what's the difference between Climb and Diplomacy? Context, which can make all the difference, but mechanically its the same end effect. A bit of design philosophy I picked up from a sidebar in BESM 3.
I have no idea when my Player's will attempt another Fowl Fleet of magically enlarged chicken carpet bombing,That is a wonderful image! Did your players really try this?
They most certainly were plotting it actively. It was an epic game in Eberron where I let them have almost free run. Their main goal was how to subject the nations of the world. The full master plan called for an airship with progressively larger hoops of enlargement (or just a powerful single one) that the chickens would fall through. The "line" of chickens would be roped together and the weight of the enlarged first chicken tossed would drag the whole line through. Thus providing minimal effort and create an even spread of splatter when hit ground. They were even going to setup their chicken farm (they were going to breed their own ammo) next to a haunted mountain (which was basically intended to read as a Rakshasa demon lord being trapped under it) in the hopes in inducing further... evils... in the chickens.
Unfortunately the game ended before this was executed due to one of the players taking off for the summer, and one heading out for a two year sojourn. Although they did bomb Breland's mobile fortress into slag... which gave the idea of adding a biological/disease-carrying element. And yes they were playing quite the evil characters.
This group is know for its "creative" solutions to "problems." The first time this lesson really sunk in for me was back in 3e when they chose to literally climb a wall instead of solving a Minesweeper style stun trap. They most defiantly come at the game sidewise if not in corkscrew fashion sometimes.
With 4E newly released a few of my friends bought the books and wanted to try it out. The test run was a flop. (I am willing to consider the possibility that it was simply a bad first impression.) No one involved was impressed by how the game went or the feel of the new mechanics. So our group opted to remain with the 3.5 rule set that we were already familiar with and had a collectively massive library of source material from. Since then I have looked from time to time at what WotC has done to Forgotten Realms in 4E and I must say it deeply saddens me. I really loved a lot of the things that 4E laid waste to in the Forgotten Realms.
A few months later our game was put on hold by individuals deploying and others moving away. So we had a rather long period of down time. One of the guys in the group suggested to me that Pathfinder was taking up the mantle of 3.5 rules and might be the way to go in the future if we didn't care for 4E. I spent a good majority of my time during that period on these boards and studying the PRD. I was highly impressed with everything I found. I started spreading the word to the other members of my group, to include my DM and before long they were on board to try a Pathfinder game when we got back together. It did mean sacrificing a lot of 3.5 material that wasn't readily compatible in one way or another but it was a smooth and positive transition. (We did keep a lot of 3.5 stuff for source material; we just aren't using any of it right now due to the time it takes to convert. Plus PF presents a full and well thought out system, a lot of 3.5 stuff just doesn’t fit the balance, compatible or not.)
... that wasn't quite as concise as I wanted to be.
But it wasn't 'TL;DR' worthy. It was concise. Each point, short and sweet. Thanks for sharing.
Since then I have looked from time to time at what WotC has done to Forgotten Realms in 4E and I must say it deeply saddens me. I really loved a lot of the things that 4E laid waste to in the Forgotten Realms.
I pretty well agree with that, too.
But feebly in their defense:
1) I think there was a certain wisdom in trying to get rid of some/most of the super-glut of epic arcane casters that exist in the Realms. You can't really throw a rock in the Realms without hitting two, and (to me), this always detracted from rather than enhanced the charm of the setting, because it's an extra obstacle to work around as a DM (especially with players who know the setting) that you just do not need.
2) I don't think there's really anything you could do to make the Realms work as a 4E setting. The lore of the world is just too, too full of casters doing exactly the kinds of things that 1E/2E/3E casters can do and 4E casters really can't.
But all that being said, other-world island of dragonborn, wtf?
I have a HUGE 3.0/3.5/d20 library. I'm a bit of a bibliophile/collector and love my D&D books. I was/am also a big fan of Eberron.
I picked up the "core three" 4.0 books when it came out to check the system out but ended up rarely opening the books because of a ongoing 3.5 Eberron game I was running. During that time period WotC killed Dragon in print format and I traded in my Dragon subscription for free issues of the "new" Paizo Adventure Paths.
When the Eberron campaign ended... I found myself short on planning time (because of scheduling changes at work) and dusted off Rise of the Runelords so that I'd have material for the next game. As time progressed and the Pathfinder RPG was released it seemed only natural to swap to the new system.
The upgrade from 3.5 to Pathfinder went very smoothly and Pathfinder has proved to have fixed the majority of the issues that 3.5 had.
I have continued with Pathfinder as it allows me to continue to use my entire library of books (with very little work) as well as the lower price point to pick up new material from Paizo. The constant support from Paizo and the Paizo community are huge pluses as well.
I also really enjoy all the tools Paizo is releasing to help GM/DM's improve the depth of their games. Flip-mats, item/face cards, campaign coins all make for great ways to immerse the players in the game experience.
|
Well as the OP is asking why did I pick Pathfiner insead of 4.0?
The simplest answer, is this. I bought the three basic books when they first came out. I tried 4.0 for several months, both as a player and as a DM. I found that 4.0 while a well put together game, was not my cup of tea. For me there were too many changes. From what I saw, All 4.0 had in common to the previous editions was the name. My group decided to go back to 3.5. Then when pathfinder came out, with the beta, then the game, it was a natural progression.
We also began playing Rise of the Runelords, and it was a natural fit. We loved the story, and like the adventure paths.
Oh one other thing. The Paizo staff actually takes the time to listen to us. During the play test for the new Advanced Players Guide, I was playing an oracle. A spontaneous devine caster. I noticed, and im sure many others did, that I would have to spend my few Spells Known on Cure spells. This would seriously hamper my spell selection. I and im sure many others suggested, that the Oracle get the Cure spells added to their spells known for freee. The Paizo staff listened to us, and now The Oracle automatically knows all cure spells or inflict spells.
I could go on, but I don’t think im going ot add anything new to the conversation.
|
|
With 4E newly released a few of my friends bought the books and wanted to try it out. The test run was a flop. (I am willing to consider the possibility that it was simply a bad first impression.) No one involved was impressed by how the game went or the feel of the new mechanics...
That's basically what happened in my group. We played every Saturday for about 6-8 hour for the first six months after the core books released. I (a player) absolutely hated playing it, but I stuck with it because the others wanted to play. It finally ended when the DM came to the conclusion that he wasn't enjoying running it and no one wanted to step up to take over. There were two people who didn't have a problem with it and still play in other 4e games, but I've never gone back, and honestly don't think I ever will.
I ran my Spelljammer using the beta rules, later converting to the final Pathfinder rules when they became available.
==
AKA 8one6
4e owns Pathfinder owns.
420 play D&D every day.
Also if you can't roleplay without having a "tying ropes" skill or a "be a blacksmith" skill then you must've hated every edition before 3e.
Oy! Digital Mage! If you are looking for Golarion in single book, like the 4E Compaign settings, then there are two things you might want to look at.
Old Golarion book using 3.5 D&D
Revised book using Pathfinder RPG rules.
The other books are not mandatory, just like anything in 3E Eberron wasn't beyond the core book IMO (Although I must admit that Eberron books were one of the best things I've seen so far for 3E).
It treats third party publishers like partners.
Currently playing both 4e and Pathfinder, I would use 99% of the full second it would take to pick Pathfinder over 4e to wish 4e well and maybe I will see them again someday.
I won't go into all the little reasons that I prefer Pathfinder, but will relate the biggest reason. Being an old school D&D player from the plain white wrapper days, to me, Pathfinder still feels like D&D, and 4e feels like a board game.
So if you want an easier well balanced game that requires a smaller amount of prep time 4e is your game. If you are craving a more immersive game that still shares a great deal with older D&D additions Pathfinder is for you.
Also nothing to sneeze at is Pathfinders huge library of adventures and adventure paths. Some of the best written and fun to play adventures that I have seen in 30+ years of gaming.
I can answer the Title question: Why did you choose Pathfinder? I have never played 4th Edition, so I have no opinion of it. If I were younger and had more time, I would definately play 4th Edition, though.
* Pathfinder brought back the role of the DM that I remember from 1st and 2nd Edition. I thought 3.5 went the wrong way with the Monsterous Manual being treated as another race book. Certain campaigns had monsters as races, but that's what made the campaigns special.
* Pathfinder seems bent on Adventures and Campaign Setting, which is what I think made 2nd Edition such a hit.
* Did a lot for rogues and bards, my 2 favorite classes for 15 years.
* Archtypes = Kits. Why change the whole class to accomplish something? Just a few edits and you have what you need.
* Their slogan is a symbol for an irrational number.
* Their slogan is a symbol for an irrational number.
What do you mean?
* Their slogan is a symbol for an irrational number.What do you mean?
An irrational number is a real number that is a non-repeating non-terminating decimal. It can not be represented by a ratio of integers.
Well, I guess I've held off long enough on answering this:
He is a river...FLOWING TO HIS PEOPLE!
|
|
I'm not a hater of PF or Paizo. I am just trying to give the OP both sides of the debate.
Here is the thing. I checked, and you have made 18 posts. Most are in a thread you started about how your group "broke the system" and the rest are here, where you seem to be doing a Kaynesque "Imma let you finish, but 4E is the best game system evar!"
Hmm...
Anyway, on topic I played 3.5 for a few years and liked it. Sure, some of the splatbooks were unbalanced, but we had a good DM and a good group who were more about making it fun then exploiting. Forgotten Realms was a great place to explore, and all was well.
Then it was announced suddenly it was no longer going to be supported and 4E was coming. We were upset that we invested so much in books and time, but we gave 4E and honest shot when it came out.
It wasn't DnD. It was easy to run, and kind of fun for a little while, but it felt like a very railroaded video game. And what they did to Forgotten Realms...
Anyway we decided as a group to stay 3.5, figuring enough material existed anyway.
I was the first in my group to find Pathfinder. It was a hard sell, and I actually had to learn to DM in order to get people to try it, as our group was keeping fantasy in 3.5 and only playing other systems for non-fantasy settings (Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy, a little bit of Rifts).
We now have several games running, some staying in 3.5 (we figure forgotten realms is 3.5, and so we aren't converting) and the ones I run in Pathfinder. Exploring a new world is great, but it is how familiar Golarion feels that got other people to buy in. Paizo is adding material, but not just for materials sake like the old splatbooks felt like. I always want more, but I respect how unlike WOTC they understand that if you kill balance you kill the golden goose.
I know a lot of new gamers who play 4e. I tend to think of it as roleplaying with training wheels, easy to run and play, but lacking any depth. Kind of like a choose your own adventure book, it has it's appeal, but the repetitive nature and forced compartmentalization gets old after awhile.
Pathfinder is harder to run as a DM because it has a lot of options. You have to know the rules, and you have to play with people who like to get involved in creating a character and playing it, not just hitting things and min/maxing.
I also like a lot of Green Ronin stuff for the same reasons I gave above. You can tell people who play are working to make something they like to play as much as trying to get money out of my pocket. Maybe they get overwhelmed being a smallish publisher, but you can sense it's a labor of love when developers answer questions off hours on messageboards, or giddily put stuff from their home games into the canon.
WoTC made clear the priority was to get subscriptions and splatbooks sold in volume, regardless of quality. It shows.
Also if you can't roleplay without having a "tying ropes" skill or a "be a blacksmith" skill then you must've hated every edition before 3e.
Hey now. 2E and its non-weapon proficiencies would like to have a word with you.
Even 1E's secondary skills are giving you the eye.