I had invested too much in 3.5
My group didn't want to learn new rules.
I was right there with you up to this point. Here's how I'd finish it though.
Agreed and seconded.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.
I agree, but only because of how people define roleplaying. I think of roleplaying as actually pretending to be your character. Your dialogue, your actions, your reactions, personality, etc. Some people use the term roleplaying to mean creative problem solving.
I think 3.5>4E in terms of being able to come up with a solution and make it happen through planning, skill checks, team cooperation and...ok yeah mainly magic.
I think it's ironic that a lot of the 4E proponents say one of the things they like about 4e is that you have more things to do than "just attack". Where in combat, I agree this is mostly true--for martial characters, casters do exactly that where in 3.x they largely don't if they know what's good for them. Even wizard control spells are like "do 5d8+int damage and daze target" or something.
Once you're out of combat, there's skills and rituals. Rituals are expensive, time-consuming, and innefectual whereas skill challenges are borked out of the box. I do like the IDEA of skill challenges (for NON-rp encounters) but the math is just all kinds of bad.
I had invested too much in 3.5
My group didn't want to learn new rules.
I was right there with you up to this point. Here's how I'd finish it though.
The rules differences between 3.5 and PF are relatively miniscule to that of 3.5>4e, many of which were already common house rules, the rest of which can easily be learned in a session or two. Core rules I mean. A spell difference crops up now and again because it's a spell we haven't used since the switch, but largely it was like this: classes get new abilities-CHECK power attack works differently-CHECK Combat Maneuver Bonus calculation-CHECK, ok good to go fellas.
I played D&D's fourth edition before I even knew Pathfinder existed, and I was extremely dissapointed. Yes, the game was perfectly balanced (or almost) when it came to combat. Still, my players and I never really cared for combat balance (my players can actually have lots of fun playing bards in my games) and some rules just didn't make sense to me. D&D's fourth edition felt like an MMORPG to me : at-will skills, designed so everyone can be as efficient in combat than his partners, strange, colourful races (that are usually far from their old school counterpart), artwork with huge, impossible sets of armor and glowing swords. I felt like I was playing WoW, where every character is the same and determined by a few limited choices.
I fell in love with Pathfinder. Yes, it's not as balanced as it could be, and it comes with many flaws of the 3rd Edition, but I'd rather play a game in which a high level Wizard is much more powerful than a high level Fighter because, well, he's a wizard. Seeing Gandalf beat the crap out of Aragorn in a heartbeat wouldn't surprise anyone, because he's a darn wizard. Also, Paizo's books are the best deals I've seen : for less than a hundred dollars, I bought the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary nearly as soon as they came out. Those two manuals are about equivalent to three basic manuals from D&D 3.5 that cost me nearly twice the price of Paizo's. And I fell in love with the artwork too : never, in my opinion, have the goblins and the gnomes, my two favorite races of all time, been represented in all their pride and glory until the release of Pathfinder RPG.
But don't listen to me, I was sold to D&D 3.5 and its related games at the age of ten years old. When you start out this young, it's hard to make you consider new editions.
|
Once you're out of combat, there's skills and rituals.
There are also some powers that are still useful outside of combat, mainly those that can be sustaind and thus can have durations that are worth a damdn outside of combat. For example Invisibility can be sustained with a Standard action so you could use it to sneak around the palace and evesdrop on the king's conversations.
But yes, Skills and Rituals are where it mainly is. But then, what more do you have in 3.5 or PF? Admitedly if you feel Rituals are less effective as the equivalent spells in PF then I can maybe see some of your point, but for non-magic users?
I am feel I may be on the verge of an epiphany where I suddenly go "Of course! Pathfinder provides XYZ that really facilitates social / investigation / exploration / non-combat challenges; that's why people feel 4e doesn't support roleplaying" but at present I am not quite getting it. Can anyone help me out?
|
Digi I think it might be a combination of how it is presented and numbers. Granted I have only played 4e with the first core books. But skill challenges often felt more forced, than just using skills in 3e. Plus there was fewer skills. As for rituals with their cost and time they was less useful than spells. Plus there was fewer of them and they seemed often less effective. Now on the pro side rituals could be done all day long as long as time and gold was on hand.
Now I admit part of that could be how the GM ran things. I didn't actually have a problem with 4e personally. Most of the rest of my group hated it. I was just meh towards it. I thought it was a fine game, but trended to far into the gamist side of things. While I tend to like games that are more towards the simulationist side of things. Personally I think which side of those two groups one comes down in, says a lot about which game they like most.
|
|
But skill challenges often felt more forced, than just using skills in 3e.
Maybe it is a presentation issue, maybe some people feel they have to use Skill Challenges instead of just rolling skills. If someone does feel Skill Challenges are crap and ignores them, then they haven't lost the ability to do exactly what they were doing in 3.5 and PF though - the only thing they can be mad about is the waste of pages, as Azrael Lukja said "Well, there you have some well spent bucks! Rules so bad you should ignore them and do just like you did before!"
See, I do use Skill Challenges and have used them for allowing the PCs to track a courier who leapt from a Lightning Rail and headed into countryside for cover, and I have used them for an investigation of a stolen item (a heartstone stolen from a Night Hag's arcane workshop).
But I have also just run two 3 hour sessions with no skill challenges and also no combat - just roleplaying supported by some skill checks - Perception, Stealth, Bluff, History and Arcana mainly. And at no point did I feel that I could have done that better in 3.5 or PF - that stuff is the simple stuff.
Plus there was fewer skills.
This I can understand, and I must admit there were moments when I was thinking "I need to call for a Perform skill but there isn't one", but then I simply had the character make a Dex test for juggling; and later realised that if I had asked for a Perform (Juggler) skill check in 3.5 the player would likely have been making a Dex check anyway :)
But yes, I guess the 4e Skill List was perhaps consolidated and condensed a bit too much, even for my liking. TBH I think somewhere between PF's and 4e's Skill List would be ideal for me.
As for rituals with their cost and time they was less useful than spells. Plus there was fewer of them and they seemed often less effective. Now on the pro side rituals could be done all day long as long as time and gold was on hand.
I must admit Rituals haven't come up in my game, but that has been because not many people have them and those that do have them as an afterthough (a result of a dragon mark).
As a player of a wizard though, I did use a couple of rituals quite a lot - Tenser's FLoating disk was used to shore up a mine tunnel and then carry my wizard over a dangerous surface.
Now I admit part of that could be how the GM ran things. I didn't actually have a problem with 4e personally. Most of the rest of my group hated it. I was just meh towards it.
Yes, I am a bit meh about it too. I like some aspects of it greatly (Second Wind, the shorter skill list, half level to skills, martial powers, rituals, ability to heal somewhat between encounters, at will powers etc) but overall I still prefer 3.5 and I guess once I have learned the PF rules would likely prefer PF too.
So I am by no means a 4e fanboy, but can see benefit in the way it does some things and can find at least the ideas useful, even if the implementation wasn't that great (for example I would likely use Skill Challenges in 3.5 and PF games).
For anyone interested in a much better treatment of skill challenges than the 4e DMG (I haven't bought anything 4e since that so I don't know if any further 4e stuff treats it better), check out Star Wars Saga Edition's Galaxy of Intrigue. If you can still find a copy, that is. I found the skill challenge section worth the price of admission.
I had invested too much in 3.5
My group didn't want to learn new rules.
I was right there with you up to this point. Here's how I'd finish it though.
The rules differences between 3.5 and PF are relatively miniscule to that of 3.5>4e, many of which were already common house rules, the rest of which can easily be learned in a session or two. Core rules I mean. A spell difference crops up now and again because it's a spell we haven't used since the switch, but largely it was like this: classes get new abilities-CHECK power attack works differently-CHECK Combat Maneuver Bonus calculation-CHECK, ok good to go fellas.I get that, it is just "naturally" part that jumped out for me. It would be like if I said, "I purchased a bunch of cheerios, I like cheerios, so naturally I went out and bought honey-nut cheerios." Sure honey-nut cheerios is much closer to cheerios than cinnamon toast crunch, but cheerios is even closer to cheerios than honey-nut cheerios is.
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.* Their slogan is a symbol for an irrational number.What do you mean?
I suppose I should have emphasized what I was actually asking. I know what irrational numbers are. My question was what do you mean by: Their slogan is a symbol for an irrational number.
What slogan? What symbol?
What slogan? What symbol?
Take a good look at the Paizo golem. He's shaped something like pi.
All the Pathfinder stuff is up on the web for free and legal. Not saying that 4E isn't up there, but I don't see it as much nor to best of my knowledge it isn't approved by WotC to be there.
|
Why did I choose Pathfinder? What else was I supposed to do with Dungeon and Dragon subscriptions ending? :P
I kid, I kid >Looks at the angry mob with fire and pitchforks< I love the adventures and bonus material in the modules. The books are full of awesome. In the end I choose to ride it out, and I haven't been disappointed yet :)
Oh and the staff and board members are good people... crazy, poodlerific, zanny people... but good people all together
(I think Mogre meant "logo" instead of "slogan.")Take a good look at the Paizo golem. He's shaped something like pi.
What slogan? What symbol?
I did mean logo, sorry.
A Pi Golem is just so obscure, who doesn't love that? I would love to hear how that was thought up on a different thread. Sorry to divert from the topic.
(I think Mogre meant "logo" instead of "slogan.")Take a good look at the Paizo golem. He's shaped something like pi.
What slogan? What symbol?
I did mean logo, sorry.
A Pi Golem is just so obscure, who doesn't love that. I would love to hear how that was thought up on a different thread. Sorry to divert from the topic.
Wow, I have seen that thing so many times when I log on and not made that connection. Thanks for pointing that out, that IS in fact awesome! It not only looks like Pi it also somewhat resembles the standing stones at Stonehenge, again awesome!
I only heard of Pathfinder through a friend so I didn't really have a "pick between the two" thing going, but a more a do I like 4e and then introduced to what 4e really should've been.
With 4e I can't argue that you basically open the book and are given your stats, starting and running is very fast and it could be used as a good introduction, on the other hand getting stats from the books makes your character feel exactly the same if someone else chose that class. Lack of variation making it a pen and paper MMO.
The combat with 4e is just so long. I'm a dwarf trying to kill Hobgoblins and they just weren't dying. Unfortunatly I never actually killed anything and I was the fighter. I knocked them down low, but never killed anything.
The more I got into pathfinder I was more like:
"Wow, my character really is a hero. He's not just a tougher version of a average person he's epic. Almost like Drizzt." which I think is something all players are looking for. For their characters to not only seem like heroes in their own right, but at the same time seem like the ones from fantasy storys.
This especially hit me a lot harder with te APG releasing the variations on classes where your fighter could be a really awesome bowman or crossbowman. Maybe he uses Two-Weapon-Fighting like Drizzt but with larger weapons or be more focused in having a huge two-handed weapon in his hand? These combinations open up more areas for roleplaying if you want to play something that isn't strictly like the core class to fit or so that if you have two fighters in the group, neither one wanting to back down they could be two different types of fighters.
When I was origonally going to DM a 3.5 moduel I was completely lost. I looked at some of them and just ended up scratching my head, not sure where things went, but the Pathfinder Adventure Paths are a lot more easily explained and laid out in plain english. Of course the APs will have to be altered for Pathfinder but me and the other collaberaters on Pathfinder SRD have been converting monsters from different APs for a quick guide and look through.
Just from my experience, 4e didn't quite feel right. It seemed like more intense fighting and cutting out the roleplaying which is the main argument.
If you're already familiar with 3.5 then pathfinder will make you feel right at home. There will be modifications, most for the better I believe, but I'm certainly no pen and paper game expert. Changing the rule for dying when you read negative con score is much better and makes a lot more sense. Big meaty creatures won't die so fast and the scrawny ones will.
All in all I suggest Pathfinder because of the many reasons I mentioned. None of them are really new arguments, but these are my arguments to why I'm sticking with Pathfinder and spreading the word to all my friend :)
Why I can't do 4E:
Its very essence smacks of video games, and I'm not into'em.
It seems to all be aimed and geared for the almighty encounter, and the scenario and the storyline...eh? The what, you say..? Pish! We just wanna roll dice and pretend to kill stuff!
Out the gate, their twist on the tiefling and the inclusion of the dragonborn as a core race, made me guess the tastes of those at the helm of its design didn't coincide too well with my own. Nothing I've seen since has led me to feel any differently. It's a matter of aesthetics - and the aesthetics of 4E make me cringe.
I'm a Planescape fan from way back...I do not care for their restructuring of the planes (though I know quite a few who think the new is much better), let alone what they did to the tiefling, or the eladrin who are just a more glorified elf, now.
Healing "surges"...no matter how great a mechanic it may be in practice, the name just grates on me, as does the (lack of) logic of it. So too warrrior and rogue type classes having daily, per encounter and at will "powers."
The romance was just completely siphoned out of it. It doesn't seem the focus is creating a vivid and individual persona anymore...only hammering out the most effective fighting machine you can in the shortest amount of time.
Points of Light...the proposed setting everyone is supposed to conform to. Can you say homogenized and generic video game type fantasy setting #12B?
Lastly, I'm sorry, but...God (and Gary Gygax)meant us to toss our own saving throws! Changing it to another score your opponents need to "hit" is simply unforgiveable.
What Pathfinder has going for it in my view:
Golarion. I tend to not like the canned settings so much, Planescape/Sigil excepted. But, a terrific job was done with Golarion. A really terrific job! I mean it's just refreshingly good.
The skill system is just about perfect now. There is still enough latitude and detail, but the process of allocating points to them goes faster, and tends to yield a more satisfying result.
All of the core character classes shine, now. Yet without the quasi-homogenous feel of 4E.
The new base classes are mostly well considered, and have a lot of flavor.
The half-elf, a long time favorite of mine, is no longer stiffed compared to their parent races, as in 3.5. All of the races are balanced pretty nicely now, as with classes. And, my god, someone's finally put a slant on the gnome I actually like.
I've loved being the party's cleric since way back when, and the energy channel ability is just plain fun. And I love the new assortment of domains, too. And Golarion's colorful pantheon.
The combat maneuvers mechanic; I like this -so- much better than the headache inducing rules for grapple and other things that always used to bog down the combats.
Paizo in general: You get the feeling this is really a labor of love, with them. It shows in various, endearing ways. WotC was always a big turn off to me. And still is. They are the Microsoft of the gaming industry.
I could go on, but it's late, I'm rambling...enough blabbing already!
I never played 4th, so I can't say if it's better or worst than Pathfinder.
I have chosen Pathfinder for backward compatibility. I own so many 3.X books that I just couldn't let them gathering dust. :\
Why did I choose Pathfinder?
I have been playing D&D since I got the old-school red box at the age of 12 (I'm 32 now) and had graduated to all the 2nd edition AD&D core books in a matter of months. Countless hours with me and my friends in our main hangout (my best friend's room was a converted garage with its own entrance and very lenient parents, quite the refuge for any adolescent) and many all-nighters.
Growing up and life intruded, as it will, and besides a brief dip into White Wolf's stuff in the mid-90s I didn't do table-top RPGs for a long time, until in 2000 I was working on the phone doing tech support and the guy next to me was reading something about this "New D&D" that was about to come out, I pulled up the page he was looking at and knew that my RPG days were coming back.
By 2003 I had found a dedicated group of gamers that still plays together every 2 out of 3 weekends to this day, and we played many campaigns, the first I played with them was 3.0, then the 2nd 3.5. We then would take turns being DM when the campaign reached its reasonable conclusion or we needed a change of pace.
I found out about Pathfinder from a different gaming group that I would sometimes play with when my main group was on a break, and a friend in that other group was filling out a survey about the release of 4th edition on the WoTC website, filling out the "other comments" section with "if I wanted to play World of Warcraft I would do that, for now me and most people I know are waiting for the release of Pathfinder", I asked him about it and he filled me in and brought up the Paizo website.
About a year ago one of the other guys in my main group was up for running the game, and by the time the core rulebooks for D&D 4th edition had come out each of us had read as much as we could handle of the PHB and each of us decided it was blasphemy of the worst sort.
By this time I had been following the playtest of Pathfinder from Alpha through the actual game's release and bought the PDF version of the Core Rulebook online, and I brought up changing from 3.5 to Pathfinder since I had pretty much memorized all of the changes.
The DM (well, soon-to-be GM) said for me to bring as much Pathfinder stuff as I could find to the pre-muster session before we made characters and the group would decide what we wanted to do, "We've been playing the same game for over 5 years now, a change may be the best thing yet," he said.
Every day I would check the local bookstores (since I always have discount coupons and at the time was living off of unemployment) and finally a few days before the session the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary were there, one copy of each, and I swooped them up and the vote to switch to Pathfinder was unanimous.
That campaign is on probably-permanent hiatus, and I was the next in line to run the game, and I am currently GM-ing a wickedly delicious Golarion campaign and we are all loving every minute of it.
Thank you for keeping this game alive and well, Paizo, you have my eternal gratitude!
I am feel I may be on the verge of an epiphany where I suddenly go "Of course! Pathfinder provides XYZ that really facilitates social / investigation / exploration / non-combat challenges; that's why people feel 4e doesn't support roleplaying" but at present I am not quite getting it. Can anyone help me out?
My feeling on this is: D&D has moved further away from 'roleplaying' with each edition since first edition. Why? For me the allure of D&D was this game that was based on my imagination. The jumble of rules provided a jumping point, a firing of imagination and the rest was created (and/or interpreted) by the DM and players. Some people hate the random rules and charts of 1E because they were confusing, incomplete, or whatever. To me they were spice. Added if you liked them, ignored if not, used a little or used alot. Game companies naturally created what they could sell which was adventures or new charts and rules to cover more things or 'improve' existing things in the game. As the game industry (and audience) grew expectations and the way the game was played changed or became a different entry point for many (and roleplaying game 'rules' became an industry) than for me.
The current game editions have come to focus so much on 'official' rules (covering everything) especially around combat that folks tend to focus on that aspect of the game in my opinion. So to answer your question I believe that less rules, less fully defined rules and less focus on 'game' balance promotes imagination and focus on the shared experience (Dm and players can have) rather than on five foot steps and power triggers and what is or isn't possible by rule definition hence opening the path to playing a role.
It's not that 4E (or anyE) prevents you from roleplaying, It's that for me it does get in the way of it by trying to be too rigidly defined as a game first and foremost.
I never played 4th, so I can't say if it's better or worst than Pathfinder.
I have chosen Pathfinder for backward compatibility. I own so many 3.X books that I just couldn't let them gathering dust. :\
I own a few myself. I also own every 3.5 book published in PDF form. Some have some very nice ideas to throw into pathfinder, like some of the monsters and templates in the other monster manuels.
|
I've loved being the party's cleric since way back when, and the energy channel ability is just plain fun. And I love the new assortment of domains, too.
I bet you would like this then. ^_^
I said before but I'll say again, robust 3rd party support is a winning ingredient in Pathfinder. It allows you to take the game in so many different directions. One company can only produce so much, no matter how cool their ideas.
I chose Pathfinder before there was Pathfinder. Why? For similar reasons to many others that have posted here.
WotC set a tone in 3.5 that grated nerves raw with a seemingly ever-accelerating product release schedule that churned out Core books with widely varying content quality. When a new book is Core, as the GM I felt an obligation to get it.
the closing 2 years or so resulted in 18 or so new books that contained, for my "needs" a grand total of about 300 pages of semi-worthwhile content. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Monster Manuals included so many unnecessary variations on the same basic monster that resulted in the equivalent page content of one regular critter book worth of monsters. For me, they charged me $300 per book-equivalent of useable content.
The waning days of 3.5 had a few adventures with "big name" authors that used that page-wasting Delve format. I came to hate this format with an unholy passion. What pre-Delve format was nominally a 32-page adventure became a higher-priced for the same content 64-page module.
Then the relatively sudden End fell like a hammer. The magazines were yoinked back into WotC's purview with little explanation. Why?! The Adventure Path issues were getting better and better. Compiled hardcover of the SCAP hit the shelves and - locally - left at a steady pace. For no clear reason the hope to get AoW and the STAP in compiled, errata'd hardcovers was permanently removed.
Then they announced 4e. Nothing coherent on WHAT it would be, just "you'll see".
Then they yoinked my old-ed PDFs. No chance to re-acquire some of the cool stuff from Back When. Poof, gone, done. Forget the old-ed, I *must* play 4e was the message.
They hemmed, hawed and waffled on the 4e GSL for months. When the thing finally slithered forth from its lair, there was no sane reason for any "outside" company to entertain supporting 4e. A big reason foe 3e's success was that OGL. Now that bridge has been set on fire, the earth around it for leagues salted.
Finally the game is released - and it even has modules. *Applause*
Oh wait. STILL in that Delve format. Modules are folders and its super-easy to lose all the parts. The DMG is great stuff. The PHB appears to have been writtten by some one NOT the author of the DMG, although the name is the same. The MM is ALSO in the Delve format - and dinosaurs are not the lame names they labeled them!! I can accept that superstitious folk can call 'em those names. That goes in the "fluff", dammit.
My character is barely significantly different in feel ... from the rest of the party. The main differences are flavor-text attached to my beat sticks and what type of otherwise identical damage output I do. CON is overwhelmingly stat #1 or #2.
We play the first three modules. And taking down the BBEG became too clearly a matter of attrition. How many of us would survive? Could survive? I don't like my BBEG's to get one-shotted, but come on. How does this cleric villain survive this kind of beat-down for the endless HOURS it takes to do the motions before he *finally* falls over? Because his description includes MMO parlance.
If I want a video game experience, I will play one. You expect me to pay monthly, I expect to be able to log on and play for far more hours per week than any human GM can run.
All this = why. Sorry for the rant.
|
|
2 main reasons.
1: I love to test and try new things, make new wondrous items, see if I can make flying assault homonculi, make dual whip wielding warriors, and so on. I feel that 3.5 had more of a diversion based on what I did while 4E was more number crunching and very predictable. That same stability you have in WoW minus the computer. So when Pathfinder was brought to my attention as a streamlined 3.5 I was on board, especially after I found out...
2: Sean K. Reynolds. Stupid story, one of my friends is named Sean Reynolds so Sean K. Reynolds caught my eye and he just did great fun ideas like Ghostwalk and good ol Forgotten Realms. He and Monte Cook became my sort of target names so when I heard he was attached to pathfinder I was all warm and fuzzy inside. Given now I have a number of writers I like but he was the first name I noticed and liked.
WotC set a tone in 3.5 that grated nerves raw with a seemingly ever-accelerating product release schedule that churned out Core books with widely varying content quality. When a new book is Core, as the GM I felt an obligation to get it.
Just a bit of vocabulary clarification, those additional books were not "Core". Carry on.
WotC set a tone in 3.5 that grated nerves raw with a seemingly ever-accelerating product release schedule that churned out Core books with widely varying content quality. When a new book is Core, as the GM I felt an obligation to get it.Just a bit of vocabulary clarification, those additional books were not "Core". Carry on.
When they listed them for release, the ones I got were at that time listed on their website as Core Rulebooks.
When they listed them for release, the ones I got were at that time listed on their website as Core Rulebooks.WotC set a tone in 3.5 that grated nerves raw with a seemingly ever-accelerating product release schedule that churned out Core books with widely varying content quality. When a new book is Core, as the GM I felt an obligation to get it.Just a bit of vocabulary clarification, those additional books were not "Core". Carry on.
In 3.5, the only Core books were the PHB, DMG, and MM. Anything beyond that was not "Core".
I realize it is not great source but here is something.
Unlike previous editions with just 3 core rulebooks, 4th edition Core Rules includes multiple Player's Handbooks (PH), Dungeon Master's Guides, and Monster Manuals that are being released yearly, with each new book becoming a part of the core. They will include core classes, races, monsters, powers, feats, paragon paths and epic destinies not present in the first PH and Monster Manual.
If you could provide a link that shows the other books being core, I would find that interesting. Here is a link discussing Complete Adventurer, where it is described as an "accessory".
the Complete Adventurer, the latest accessory for the D&D game[/b] that lets characters of any class get the most out of their skill ranks.
I have always thought these other books were called "accessories" or "supplements", but not core.
As I understand 3.5 core had two meanings. The first was any book published by WotC; the core company and it's products. The second was the 3 main books required for the game; The Player's Handbook, the DMG, and the Monster's Manual.
As I understand 3.5 core had two meanings. The first was any book published by WotC; the core company and it's products. The second was the 3 main books required for the game; The Player's Handbook, the DMG, and the Monster's Manual.
The first is the most likely at the time. It has after all been a few years now.
|
|
I think this might have already been said, but whatever.... I'll post anyway.
My gaming group tried 4E for a while. We couldn't get past the homogenization of mechanics. Every class has the same tyep of mechanics. Which, depending on what you look for in a game, can be a boon or a curse. For us it was a curse. We could come up with a character concept we realy liked, but when it came to playing, we all had our handful of "power cards" and every round felt the same.
I guess it was an immersion/flavor thing ultimately for us. We love how ever class feels somewhat unique in 3E/Pathfinder. The mechanics match our style of play better in general.
Though our DM did mention every once in a while how much less effort went into encounter-building under 4E. So there is that.
Pretty much this.
As I understand 3.5 core had two meanings. The first was any book published by WotC; the core company and it's products. The second was the 3 main books required for the game; The Player's Handbook, the DMG, and the Monster's Manual.
I think the first is more "Official Content" (which would also include Dungeon and Dragon under Paizo's production) than "Core Content". I personally have never heard all material published by WotC with respect 3.5 called "Core" except in the case of the PHB, MM, and DMG.
|
|
For me, 4E is empty. The enjoyment isn't there. WOTC gives me the impression that they don't care about what they put out. All they care about is money (at least that's they way it seems to me).
Pathfinder has improved on 3.5 greatly (still not quite perfect, but closer). They provide better background on the races and everything else in their world than WOTC did for their own (at least I think so).
Some of the other reasons I prefer Pathfinder have already been mentioned.
3.5 was a great system but needed update. Tried 4th, aka World of Warcraft pen & paper. Pathfinder was the obvious choice. So glad that a friend mentioned it to me.
As I understand 3.5 core had two meanings. The first was any book published by WotC; the core company and it's products. The second was the 3 main books required for the game; The Player's Handbook, the DMG, and the Monster's Manual.I think the first is more "Official Content" (which would also include Dungeon and Dragon under Paizo's production) than "Core Content". I personally have never heard all material published by WotC with respect 3.5 called "Core" except in the case of the PHB, MM, and DMG.
Yep yep - I was trying to agree with you from a sideways angle for some reason or another. "Official" was the watchword for those I gamed with at the time... so, replace "Core" with "Official" and we're good. :)
|
|
I originally picked up PF because I was told it was just like 3.5, except better and more balanced. I later learned this wasn't true at all and that PF was only really suited to a narrow niche of play.
I'd like to know in what way? I'm running Savage Tide with the Pathfinder rules, and I don't see how PF is a 'narrow niche' at all...
|
|
Once again can we stop with the "Wotc only cares about money" comments. Paizo also wants to make money along with quality products. Unless someone can post a link to a thread where it says Paizo is a non-profit organization. Seems like the OP request to not turn this into a 4E vs PFRP request has largely been ignored imo.
What I find most interesting about this thread is that many of you have said the same things I've said in the past. But when I said them, 4e fans came charging in, thinking of themselves as Paladins on white stallions ready to defend the faithful.
Nowadays, there just doesn't seem to be so many rabid defenders of 4e.
Maybe you and others have done a "good" job of making it clear that they (fans of 4e) are not welcome here. Just a possibility.
Mostly I DM. I have migrated my setting from original D&D to 1st edition AD&D to 2E to 3E / 3.5. Each time I could see the move and do it without too much disruption. The changes often brought some new elements / ideas to my game which was always welcome. 4E was a no go for me. I would have had to basically scrap my setting and start new. The mechanics / ideas of 4E left me with a big "meh". Not a bad game... just not my game. Not D&D, to me. Pathfinder provides continuing support, another evolution of the game and new elements / ideas that are once again, welcome. And it didn't kill the setting I've put so much work into :)
Core did somewhat have two definitions under 3.X. Firstly, it meant the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. But it also was used to refer to the non-setting specific WotC D&D products.
Well, I am willing to admit that there are probably some areas on this internet that it was used in that way. I have never before run across it myself until the claims I have heard in this thread. "Official", "Supplement", and "Accessory" are all terms I have heard used to describe non-PHB/DMG/MM1 non-setting specific WotC texts in 3.5 (besides terms such as "Splatbooks").
|
|
Thirded, seems a fair number of Pathfinder fans to come off as elitist at times heh.Disliking a game doesn't make you an elitist.
There is a good chance that maybe Aarontendo was not refering to you :) He did say "a fair number" not "all"!
Sure I think a proper pizza should never see a pineapple on the same table, but this doesn't mean I feel superior to the hundreds who seem to like that thing.
I think it is in the language and how over the internet in a purely written medium it can potentially be misinterpretted.
For example, in the quote above you say "I think a proper pizza should never see a pineapple on the same table". From your use of the word "proper" it can be inferred that you feel pizza's with pineapple aren't proper pizzas - they are fake or something. You may not have meant to imply that, but it can be inferred.
Its the same thing with someone making a statement where it can be inferred that 4e is not a proper roleplaying game (when it is).
Basically, in a topic where people can get defensive over any perceived insult to their chosen game, we need to be ultra clear in our posts to ensure no misinterpretations can occur.
Even just putting things like "For me, 4e is too much like a miniatures wargame to be enjoyable" (clearly subjective) rather than "4e is just a miniatures wargame" (a subjective statement presented as if it was an objective fact).
|
|
Thirded, seems a fair number of Pathfinder fans to come off as elitist at times heh.
Have you ever been to WotC's forums? If anyone admits to playing 3.X, Pathfinder, or similar games, they begin to organize a lynch squad. It's bad...far worse than this board is for 4E. And the moderation is much more strict there...it doesn't take long for someone to say they prefer X to 4E before a thread is locked down.
I'm sure 4E is a great game for people who it appeals to. I gave it an (admittedly cursury) read through when it first came out, and it just didn't appeal to me. But hey, that's fine...cos it seems to be doing fairly well even without me. And I still might even be able to crib ideas from the occasional adventures (being the Tomb of Horrors nut that I am, I had to get it...I'll end up converting it over to PFRPG one of these days. Probably after I finally finish my original ToH and RttToH conversions).
|
|
Thirded, seems a fair number of Pathfinder fans to come off as elitist at times heh.
Disliking a game doesn't make you an elitist.
There is a good chance that maybe Aarontendo was not refering to you :) He did say "a fair number" not "all"! [snip] Basically, in a topic where people can get defensive over any perceived insult to their chosen game, we need to be ultra clear in our posts to ensure no misinterpretations can occur.
I would hazard a guess that making a general and derogatory accusation against a "fair number" of a given population without actually specifying individuals is a recipe for misunderstandings as those of us who are not being accused feel lumped in with the ones who are.
Basically, in a topic where people can get defensive over any percieved insult to their character and integrity, we need to be careful not to insult a given group so that no unnecessary misunderstandings and hurt feelings occur. :)