Chief Technical Officer
|
I've removed a few more posts. I really, really don't want to lock this thread, because there's some really good stuff in here; if that means I have to take a heavier hand than I usually do, I will. Not only do some of you need to knock it off, but you also need to stop talking about who needs to knock it off. If you see a problem post, flag it and move on—do not reply.
I somewhat did not like giving everyone passive perception in 4th. I played a little and the pit traps were automatically detected in combat and then the goblins were pushed into them or knocked prone by a fighter.
I somewhat did not like giving everyone passive perception in 4th. I played a little and the pit traps were automatically detected in combat and then the goblins were pushed into them or knocked prone by a fighter.
Tehee
I recall one of the game days here where all enemies in a final fight ended up in some kind of zombie pit (technically a meatgrinder) because of our push X sq powers (at-will). Fellspawn and evil cultists all dead within 5 rounds and our pristine party walked away chuckling.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
It quickly got to this point though. Why does anybody choose a RPG or any game for that matter? Hopefully for one reason; It's fun. When 3rd Edition first came out, my 2nd Edition group ended their role playing days. Their reasoning was that it took the "Role" out of Role Playing (not saying this is wrong or right, but no need for a tirade, it's their opinion and they are not on here to defend it).
I've played several different RPGs and enjoyed all of them. I think what really makes an RPG worth while is the people you play it with. It probably wouldn't matter if it was Pathfinder, D&D, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, or whatever, if I was in the company of those I like being in the company of, then I am sure I would be having a good time.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG....
I've played several different RPGs and enjoyed all of them. I think what really makes an RPG worth while is the people you play it with. It probably wouldn't matter if it was Pathfinder, D&D, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, or whatever, if I was in the company of those I like being in the company of, then I am sure I would be having a good time.
Seconded.
Our DM decided that he wanted to try out Pathfinder. I think part of the appeal is the limited number of sourcebooks (Core and APG) compared to the mountain of 3.5 resource material. A related point of appeal is that he can bring in story-relevant mechanics (for example, he's allowing dragonmarks from Eberron) which will figure prominently in his world-building. While he could do that in 3.5, such a twist would get buried by the other available options.
|
I remember everyone talking about how WotC was trying to kill all of the older editions. Then you point out how they still have the 3.5 SRD on their site and other free 3e and 3.5 materials or free adventures and you get people pulling their hair out and trying to jump through hoops to make it fit their theories of the evil of WotC. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad sometimes.
Thanks for those links.
I've been going batty looking for those.To be fair, they don't exactly make it easy to find.
It used to be a link at the bottom of the main page.
I can understand them wanting to prioritise their current edition, but it should be possible to do that, while still keeping players of older editions on board.
While that 3.5 link was on the main page, I and other 3.5 players had reason to go there, and stay (a peripheral) part of the wider 'Wizards' community. The carrot can always be there, to try out the new game, or buy some edition-neutral product, like floorplans, minis, fiction, etc.
As an example of this, I've played Warhammer ever since 1st Edition (when half the stats were letters!), starting in the early 80s, and I've weathered all the changes since.
Due to kids and other upheavals, I totally missed 7th Edition; got the rules, but never had an actual game, for the few years it was around.
I still logged on, kept myself informed of the releases, read some fiction, listened to debates about rule changes, seen staff come and go.
There's a new 8th Edition just out, and I'm still in touch with (mostly) the same crowd, and barring a few changes, I could get the new rules and jump straight back in.
The settings, and the character of the armies haven't significantly changed, so I still consider myself part of the Warhammer community.
|
|
I thought I weighed in on this weeks ago...
I have been playing since 1980.
When the magazines went away and Burnt Offerings was announced I decided I would subscribe to the Adventure Paths because I always loved Dungeon Magazine and thught I would get my fix here.
I was very happy and started running Runelords when it first came out. Then the whole 4.0 thing started and Paizo was not sure which way they would jump and they were not getting the information they needed from Wizards to make that decision.
I decided during that time that because of the Adventure Paths and how Golarion was shaping up that I would go which ever way Paizo went. I thought that meant 3.5 or 4.0 and I was happy with whichever things went.
I have long believed that TSR and Wizards had things backwards - focusing on rules rather than great adventures. Granted there are many classic adventures from those days but it was not the primary focus of the company.
I like that Paizo has a focus of adventures and the rules are there to support what they are doing in that realm and not the opposite.
I like what they have done with Pathfinder and I love the world building they are doing to support the adventure paths. Another TSR/Wizards problem was too many worlds - now granted I really liked some of them - Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft and the idea of Dark Sun (although I never bought the stuff or played in it). But I think in all the years of the Forgotten Realms it was not as developed as Golarion is already - or maybe it was but over several editions.
I think adventure paths in Forgotten Realms would have been great and the paths help develop the setting because there are more NPCs and regions developed with each path. I love this way of fleshing out the world. This is a true strength of the model Paizo is using and developing their world.
I also like the support of the Campaign Setting line.
So, in short I chose Pathfinder over 3.5 or 4.0 because it supports the adventure paths and the world being developed by Paizo.
I had played AD&D in the past (been at least 20 years since I've played, heh), and got the hankering to try it again. I noticed they were up to 4E, so I started purchasing the Core Rulebooks used from Amazon. A bit after I began reading the rulebooks, I just wasn't comfortable with the way the rules have changed from what I remember - everything's totally changed, and not for the better as far as I could tell.
Then along came the very recent dust-up concerning DDi over at the Wizards site - and after looking around the boards a little more closely, I decided that 4E wasn't what I wanted and I really didn't like the direction WoTC was moving in.
Fortunately, one of the posts had a reference to PFRPG, so here I am. From the stuff I've read so far from the Core Rulebook (ordered a copy from Amazon, waiting on that, reading the PDF while I do), I like it far better than 4E, and the PDF's just ROCK!
|
As a brief history, I played BECMI back in the day and switched to 2nd ed. when it came out, but had pretty much stopped playing when I was in college. In the early 2000s, a good friend of mine talked about 3.5 and what a good system it was, so we got a group together and tried it out. It was fun, so when I moved, I put together another group and played 3.5 for a couple years, in addition to sporadic Living Greyhawk on my part. I had never used Greyhawk as a setting, and I really liked the feel of it. It felt more like an organic world than the Forgotten Realms ever did, and was much better than anything I could put together on my own.
Fourth Edition came out right around the time of my most recent move. In fact, I played it before it came out at DnD Experience when we were looking for a place to live! I liked the playtest well enough, and so when I moved, I put together a group to play 4e. We played two campaigns of 4e until recently, one campaign reach mid paragon-tier. But we became dissatisfied. Whatever the possibility of DM intervention may be, all the crunchy bits of the system revolve around combat. Besides, I missed Vancian magic. So we decided to try Pathfinder.
We still haven't actually tried it yet. We rolled up character last week, and will play next week. But the more I looked at the rules, the better the system looked. It has the elegance and simplicity of 3.5, while avoiding the bloat that made 3.5 unwieldy. I especially appreciate the effort to make base classes viable from level one until twenty. Additionally, I like Golarion. It has the depth I enjoyed in Greyhawk, but it also has a weirdness that is reminiscent of some of the source literature like Wolfe. We'll see how it works in actual play, but I'm looking forward to it!
|
|
I have long believed that TSR and Wizards had things backwards - focusing on rules rather than great adventures. Granted there are many classic adventures from those days but it was not the primary focus of the company.
I like that Paizo has a focus of adventures and the rules are there to support what they are doing in that realm and not the opposite.
I should add, +1 to this. My group is largely composed of professionals. None of us has the time to invent adventures by themselves, and WotC's published adventures just aren't very interesting. I think it's this philosophy that attracted me to Pathfinder in the first place.
|
I played a lot of D&D in high school starting in 1981 with basic D&D and then moving to AD&D for a number of years. I quit around 1987 and just last year got bit by the bug again and bought a bunch of 4e books. I learned the system but I could tell it was way different from what I remembered from school. I play and enjoy 4e, but when I picked up Pathfinder and read the Core Rulebook I remember thinking, now THIS is more of the D&D that I remember. I still play a 4e game every other week, but Pathfinder is what I'm investing the rest of my gaming time and resources on.
I tried them both for a while, and while I have to confess that 4E combat is more involved and more inherently interesting than most other systems, the game is about way more than the fight for me, and Pathfinder trumps it on every other count.
4E feels too much like an MMO, and if I want to play an MMO, then I'll play an MMO. Pathfinder simply addressed so many of 3rd edition's problems in such elegant ways there was no way for me not to love it. While 4E seems to be characterized by a distinct lack of "soul," Pathfinder is at once novel and nostalgic. They seem to have managed to breath new life into numerous aspects of a system, giving things their own spin while remaining true to the spirit of the original. When building a character or designing an adventure, Pathfinder has numerous venues from which I can draw inspiration.
4E, on the other hand, seems to work more like a straightjacket, and the only creativity it fosters is how to break its chains. I feel like when I've made something cool in 4E, it's in spite of the rules, not because of them.
|
Well, since I have decided to go with pathfinder I have bought some supplement material. I will say this, the Pathfinder adventures seem to be written much better than the 4E ones.
And I am not sure if it is because of the way it is written, but even though people say that 4E is a simpler game, I find my self confused a lot more often while reading the rule books than I do when I read the Pathfinder rule book.
Also while reading the Pathfinder classes and rules I find my self imagining my character and scenarios and such. I do not find my self thinking like that while reading the 4E books.
I just find the pathfinder system and books to be quite inspiring.
Because I want to make my character. I do not want to have my character handed to me out of one or two cookie cutters and stamped with a piece of boiler plate. 4e tried to balance the classes by making them all the same and changing the name. Not only do i dislike the verisimilitude between the attack abilities of the classes, not only do i dislike having people trying to trick me into thinking there were three times as many powers as there were, but i HATE that they thought their customers were too dumb to see what was going on.
I like to customize my character because i like them to be different. I like being able to genuinely multiclass, pick up unusual abilities, and try bizarre builds so that the character is truly MINE. I don't just like thinking outside the box. I like breaking the box into pieces and rubbing the nails together until i can build a rail gun in the electron field. Whether is a druid coming in as a replacement for a rogue, a druid with a dire rat who replaces a rogue, a monk with a two handed sword or a conjurer chatting with his charges in their native infernal, pathfinder lets me turn my idea into something i can play at the table and share with my friends.
I can summarize why not to play 4e: 2/4/4/7
At level 30 you have 2 at will powers, 4 encounter powers, 4 daily powers, and 7 utility powers. That is right there in 4e player's handbook 1 somewhere around like page 20; if you have the book take a good long look at that table. I remember the 3.5 sorceror sucking it up in terms of versatility, but at least a level 30 sorceror can do more than 17 different things, 2/3 of which simply do damage in one form or another. There's a few other gripes like phantom steed have a 10 minute casting time, but nothing's as agregious as 2/4/4/7. This is not taking into account that nearly all of the classes are homogenous. I could actually do the combinatorics on the total number of distinct characters I could create out of the 4e phb and have the number not blow up my calculator. Effectively every character in 4e is some kind of warmage (for those familiar with complete arcane in 3.5); they just have 101 ways to roll d6's.[/rant]
|
|
I started as a big fan of 4E. and while I still like that version I just do not like what Wotc has done with the game recently. I also started to miss some elements of 3.5 and found that imo Paizo products gave more than Wotc. While I still despise Vancain Magic and feel Fighters while improved still suffer at high levels just much more fun and enjoyable.
Funny how posters complain about 4E characters all being the same. I saw the same thing in 3.5. Players always took the same choices. Sure the random player might decide not to take Wepaon Focus or Spell Focus yet 99% of the time in my experience non of the stood out from the rest. As for 4E being an MMO I disagree on that and could say that Pathfinder was a lot like older computer games where you had to rest up 8 hours to be fully healed. I'm not going around calling it a video game.
|
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
1. It was what my GM wanted to run. He's got a ton of 3.5 books and no interest in blowing more cash when he already had a game he liked. (He prefers to Shadowrun 3rd Edition for the same reason.)
2. I compared 3.5 to 4E and decided I liked the feel of 3.5 better (I was also already familiar with d20 thanks to playing Mutants and Masterminds). Then I looked at Pathfinder and decided I liked the common sense changes Pathfinder was making to 3.5.
I started as a big fan of 4E. and while I still like that version I just do not like what Wotc has done with the game recently. I also started to miss some elements of 3.5 and found that imo Paizo products gave more than Wotc. While I still despise Vancain Magic and feel Fighters while improved still suffer at high levels just much more fun and enjoyable.
My games rarely get to the level where fighters are completely useless, so that isn't usually an issue for me.
Funny how posters complain about 4E characters all being the same. I saw the same thing in 3.5. Players always took the same choices. Sure the random player might decide not to take Wepaon Focus or Spell Focus yet 99% of the time in my experience non of the stood out from the rest.
But what were they taking weapon focus IN? A character taking weapon focus: greatsword and one taking weapon focus: Glaive or "weapon focus spiked chain" and weapon focus falchion or weapon focus bow were all taking different feats and running different characters... not the same one. After that one might go for whirlwind attack, another improved trip, and another one out and out damage.
An evoker using blasting spells and an enchanter both take "spell focus" but do so in different schools and play completely differently than one another. Yes, in 3.5 (and somewhat in pathfinder) there aren't a whole lot of useful meta magic feats or other feats for casters to take until you hit level 12 or so, but customization comes for them from their spell choices more than their feat choices.
As for 4E being an MMO I disagree on that and could say that Pathfinder was a lot like older computer games where you had to rest up 8 hours to be fully healed. I'm not going around calling it a video game.
The reason the games made you rest up for 8 hours was because they were copying D&D, not the other way around.
I started as a big fan of 4E. and while I still like that version I just do not like what Wotc has done with the game recently. I also started to miss some elements of 3.5 and found that imo Paizo products gave more than Wotc. While I still despise Vancain Magic and feel Fighters while improved still suffer at high levels just much more fun and enjoyable.My games rarely get to the level where fighters are completely useless, so that isn't usually an issue for me.
Funny how posters complain about 4E characters all being the same. I saw the same thing in 3.5. Players always took the same choices. Sure the random player might decide not to take Wepaon Focus or Spell Focus yet 99% of the time in my experience non of the stood out from the rest.But what were they taking weapon focus IN? A character taking weapon focus: greatsword and one taking weapon focus: Glaive or "weapon focus spiked chain" and weapon focus falchion or weapon focus bow were all taking different feats and running different characters... not the same one. After that one might go for whirlwind attack, another improved trip, and another one out and out damage.
An evoker using blasting spells and an enchanter both take "spell focus" but do so in different schools and play completely differently than one another. Yes, in 3.5 (and somewhat in pathfinder) there aren't a whole lot of useful meta magic feats or other feats for casters to take until you hit level 12 or so, but customization comes for them from their spell choices more than their feat choices.
As for 4E being an MMO I disagree on that and could say that Pathfinder was a lot like older computer games where you had to rest up 8 hours to be fully healed. I'm not going around calling it a video game.The reason the games made you rest up for 8 hours was because they were copying D&D, not the other way around.
Aye reminds of one point of ridicule in 4e, improved crit is an epic feat in 4e.
I worked at my FLGS when 4th ed was announced. The store owner was a nice old man who could cave your head in with his bare hands despite being tiny, skinny, and diabetic. WOTC held a number of conferences for the store owners that the owner would attend and then relay to all us employees.
He was very unimpressed with WOTC's handling of 4th ed from the get-go as a store owner because of the business model WOTC had adopted. Remember, this was when the GSL was constantly being held back from release while they themselves kept hinting at it as being extremely strict. Their marketing plan had been originally to release "revisions" to the rules every year as the PHB2 and DMG2, PHB3 and DMG3, etc, each set containing new rules that would make the old books more and more obsolete. I'm not saying that's what they have done. I am saying that's what they told my boss, a game store owner, that their plan was. Marketing, money-making, DDI exclusive content, the WOTC rep covered all this. Game-play, game feel, 3rd party support, not mentioned. Even when asked.
That game store owner is a nice old man. Sends gaming materials to guys he knows in prison so they have a method of escapism while stuck inside. Teaches games to random 5 year olds who wander into the store. And he's downright scary when he's angry or disappointed, mainly because you know he knows how to use the swords on the wall. And he was very disappointed in WOTC. 4th edition made my former boss afraid he'd be pushed out of business by WOTC's business practices.
So he sat us down and discussed the future of the store. This was before Paizo had announced the Pathfinder RPG. We decided it would be worth it to try and sink as much money into 3.5 books as possible and support 3.5 alongside 4th and just hope WOTC didn't find out.
And then Pathfinder was announced.
I kept an eye on the boards, was my store's presence on these Paizo boards during the discussions of the GSL, the edition wars, the wanking, the whining. And I was my store's presence on these Paizo boards when Pathfinder was first hinted at through Rise of the Runelords.
I asked my former boss to give this whole Adventure Path thing a try. It took a while to really take off.
Because of monetary issues independent of the store's performance, the owner had to sell half of the business to a friend. I moved away two months before the Pathfinder Beta was released and haven't been back as an employee since. But I have returned from time to time. 4th edition performed about as well as could be expected, about as well as 3.5 had. But after Pathfinder started taking off, well...
Last I heard the store was profitable again.
That's why I play Pathfinder.
|
|
But what were they taking weapon focus IN? A character taking weapon focus: greatsword and one taking weapon focus: Glaive or "weapon focus spiked chain" and weapon focus falchion or weapon focus bow were all taking different feats and running different characters... not the same one. After that one might go for whirlwind attack, another improved trip, and another one out and out damage.An evoker using blasting spells and an enchanter both take "spell focus" but do so in different schools and play completely differently than one another. Yes, in 3.5 (and somewhat in pathfinder) there aren't a whole lot of useful meta magic feats or other feats for casters to take until you hit level 12 or so, but customization comes for them from their spell choices more than their feat choices.
I understand the point your trying to make. Yet a feat is a feat. It's nopt like WP Greatswor or WF Glaive give you a different benefit. Same bonus just on different weapons. The one who wants to trip the same imo. A fighter who wants to end up with Whirlwind usually looks the same like the next one. Same thing with a Wizard usually the same feats. and imo the same spells. Specilaist or genernlist mage. The same feats and usually the same spells. It's not like Specialists and generalists have a distinct spell list beyond one having a prohibeted school. Usually the only thing that makes them distinct is how they are roplayed.
The only time I see characters that stand out is when a player decides to make a character that takes different feats. I once decided to play a mage who specilized in building and crafting items. His list of feats and spells stood out from what I usually take when I play a regular Wizard. Or they are multiclassing or wanting to take a prestige class.
The reason the games made you rest up for 8 hours was because they were copying D&D, not the other way around.
Imo I think 4e was unfailry treated by the fanabase. If computer games borrow so much from D&D why should D&D not borrow from them.
|
|
It quickly got to this point though. Why does anybody choose a RPG or any game for that matter? Hopefully for one reason; It's fun. When 3rd Edition first came out, my 2nd Edition group ended their role playing days. Their reasoning was that it took the "Role" out of Role Playing (not saying this is wrong or right, but no need for a tirade, it's their opinion and they are not on here to defend it).
I've played several different RPGs and enjoyed all of them. I think what really makes an RPG worth while is the people you play it with. It probably wouldn't matter if it was Pathfinder, D&D, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, or whatever, if I was in the company of those I like being in the company of, then I am sure I would be having a good time.
Thirded. Unforuntately unless you specificslly ask not to see anything about 4E in a thread written on a paper bag in wax crayon inevitabley someone just has to badmouth 4E to push Pathfinder. By doing that your not making a good case for the game imo. Since you need to insult one rpg to push another rpg. Pathfinder is a good game that can stand on it's own without posters feeling the need to trash talk 4E.
After the print versions of Dragon Magazine went away, Paizo sent me the first Pathfinder Adventure Path modules. While I'm not a module running DM, I loved the setting and the overall "feel" of the stories in the modules.
I was disappointed to learn that 3.5 was coming to an end. I'd sunk a ton of money into 3.5 material, and I just couldn't bring myself to do the same with 4e. My players didn't want to switch for the same reasons. A few of them tried some 4e games and didn't care for the changes. I've not played using the rules, but just from what I've read while browsing the books and on messageboards, I had no interest at all.
I didn't buy my first Pathfinder product until the Campaign Setting came out, and was hooked. My group was only meeting sporadically, so it was fairly easy to wait for the Core Rulebook, and when I received that, all bets were off. I loved the changes made to the classes, the simplification and rewriting of some of the rules, and the brand new things being offered.
Currently I'm running a homebrew with the Pathfinder rules. There are a couple of folks in my game who wouldn't be happy with anything new (one guy still campaigns for us to abandon PF and switch back to AD&D 1e. Ain't happnin'). But they're in the mix and playing PF, so I guess it ain't all bad. I prefer it over 3.5, as do a couple other guys in my group.
So, to break it down, I chose PF because I didn't want to have all the money I spent on 3.5 wasted....and it's fun!
I understand the point your trying to make. Yet a feat is a feat. It's nopt like WP Greatswor or WF Glaive give you a different benefit.
They play entirely different.One deals a lot of damage on his turn, the other hands out status debuffs (trips) on his turn, and then damages and trips on other people's turns.
The one who wants to trip the same imo. A fighter who wants to end up with Whirlwind usually looks the same like the next one.
Right, but for fighter we have at least four different options (2 handed damage, sword and board, whirl wind, and trip monkey) this is not counting options that don't really work (like 2 weapon fighting). The point is that each one is different.... within the fighter class. The different types of fighters all feel different.
The 4e "i use my at will power to make an attack roll for 1d6 points of damage" felt very samey for both the wizard and the ranger.. that's across allegedly different classes.
Same thing with a Wizard usually the same feats. and imo the same spells. Specilaist or genernlist mage. The same feats and usually the same spells. It's not like Specialists and generalists have a distinct spell list beyond one having a prohibeted school. Usually the only thing that makes them distinct is how they are roplayed.
That's something with your wizards then, its not something forced on you by the system. I've seen (and been) blasty wizards, illusionists, SOD wizards, and summoners. (the latter more than dabbled in shapeshifting) They all play differently, and that's allowed (and even encouraged" in the system. A point blank shotting ray slinger rolls a d 20 and rolls enough damage dice to make it sound like thunder, overpowering obstacles with pure force. My summoner picked the best summon monster for a situation, picking the right tool for the right job to finesse the situation like an artiste going after a lock, controlling the battlefield from around the corner, or comming up with a solution so bizzare the mob was in trouble before the players at the table could close their mouths. It wasn't JUST their personalities, how they affected the table was completely different. I looked at the 4e rules, tried a few games, and didn't see how that was possible.
The only time I see characters that stand out is when a player decides to make a character that takes different feats. I once decided to play a mage who specilized in building and crafting items. His list of feats and spells stood out from what I usually take when I play a regular Wizard. Or they are multiclassing or wanting to take a prestige class.
My observations are different, but I don't see how on earth you can think an evoker, an enchanter, and a summoner all play the same way.
The reason the games made you rest up for 8 hours was because they were copying D&D, not the other way around.
Imo I think 4e was unfailry treated by the fanabase. If computer games borrow so much from D&D why should D&D not borrow from them.
Because if you're doing a computer game, computers do it better. If all you have is the numbers from a random number generator, computers do that faster than the dice.
What makes a role playing game fun, for me, is the ability to think outside the box. Battlefield control, unusual circumstances, grappling, tactical advantages, and doing things no computer can compensate for make a human adjudicator necessary and the game fun.
edit: [dragonpurist] oh, and dragonpeople all need tails, and female reptiles have no excuse for needing an extra large breastplate. [/dragonpurist]
|
Thirded. Unforuntately unless you specificslly ask not to see anything about 4E in a thread written on a paper bag in wax crayon inevitabley someone just has to badmouth 4E to push Pathfinder. By doing that your not making a good case for the game imo. Since you need to insult one rpg to push another rpg. Pathfinder is a good game that can stand on it's own without posters feeling the need to trash talk 4E.It quickly got to this point though. Why does anybody choose a RPG or any game for that matter? Hopefully for one reason; It's fun. When 3rd Edition first came out, my 2nd Edition group ended their role playing days. Their reasoning was that it took the "Role" out of Role Playing (not saying this is wrong or right, but no need for a tirade, it's their opinion and they are not on here to defend it).
I've played several different RPGs and enjoyed all of them. I think what really makes an RPG worth while is the people you play it with. It probably wouldn't matter if it was Pathfinder, D&D, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, or whatever, if I was in the company of those I like being in the company of, then I am sure I would be having a good time.
I agree that all that matters is playing a game with people you like to spend time with.
I am coming off of the Official 4e boards where I have been a regular for about 5 years.
No thread about 3e or PF were allowed to go without being attacked.
It is just how it goes I guess.
To tell you the truth. I played 4e and I thought it was Ok.
But pathfinder just felt right. Where 4e felt like a tabletop video game. pathfinder was a role playing experience more inline with the old school games I played as a kid and throughout college.
|
|
I am coming off of the Official 4e boards where I have been a regular for about 5 years. No thread about 3e or PF were allowed to go without being attacked. It is just how it goes I guess.
Don't get me wrong some fans who frequent the Wotc boards are not paragons of virute by any means. Which is why I stopped going like I used to. Until the mods cracked donw on the anti-4E stuff here it was pretty bad. So much so that it almost turned me away from the game.
|
|
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
I chose PF because of the quality put in to the product overall. It usually lacks nothing and still leaves room for me to customize it to fit my game. "Hook Mountain Massacre" was the tipping point. I said to myself (and all of my friends), "These guys do NOT hold back and aren't afraid to ruffle a few feathers".
In short, they put out a superior product that does not insult my intelligence. That really means a lot to me.
I started playing because I played 3rd first, gave 4th a try and didn't much care for it. But one of the things that I have come to love, as have my friends, is that there isn't a core book out every month or two. Thus far they have only put out about one per quarter. Lots of extra fluff stuff, especially for thier world, which they focus on one and not 3. I just like that extra attention to detail.
I was introduced to tabletop RPGs when my mother got me the 3.5 Draconomicon when I was a teenager. A few years went by with me going through that and a set of second-hand 3.5 core rulebooks I got from a friend, but not actually having any place to play. Lo and behold, on the television, there was an advertisement for a new game store in town. I get myself over there and ask if they had anbody running 3.5 games. Fortuitous! There was someone running a Pathfinder (then in beta) game weekly, and the store-owner described it as "very similar to 3.5". So when the time comes to try and integrate myself into this group, they welcome me with open arms. Glee! I find that Pathfinder is not just similar to, but BETTER than the 3.5 core I had been memorizing these last few years.
Flash forward a forgotten amount of time, and I peek into the 4th ed. Monster Manual to see what has become of those Mythic Beasts that drew me to the game in the first place. What is this! These entries make no sense at all? What the heck is a lurker? And why in the name of Io are the entries for the metallic dragons missing? What cruel trick is this? I turned my back on the system in disgust.
Cue another forgotten length of time passing. I see an entry on the store's weekly calendar for something called "D&D Encounters". My query into the subject reveals it's a new program being put out by WotC to give new players an introduction to the game, and to provide a regular game session for the masses. So, with much trepidation, I join the next session. After not much time, I pick up how the combat in this edition works. Very quickly I realize that almost everything but combat has been reduced to nearly below-minimum. This was not the D&D I had grown to love, it was like watching an M. Night Shyamalan movie. While I still continued to play, for it was fairly enjoyable as a hack&slash simulation, 4th ed simply could not hold a candle to the place Pathfinder now held in my heart.
my impression:
WotC are in it for the money, the game is a means
Paizo are in it for the game, the money is a meansIn other words, the 3.5 -> 4 switch seemed mostly motivated by 'making people buy new books' whereas 3.5 -> PF seems motivated by 'making the game better'.
+1 Agree
Why do i like Pathfinder..... For the Elves man, for the Elves >------> :)
|
|
They play entirely different.One deals a lot of damage on his turn, the other hands out status debuffs (trips) on his turn, and then damages and trips on other people's turns.
They may play differently yet those who take those paths as a fighter still take similar feats. A fighter who takes Greatsword is probably not going to take any of the trip feats. Or if he does at a later time.
Right, but for fighter we have at least four different options (2 handed damage, sword and board, whirl wind, and trip monkey) this is not counting options that don't really work (like 2 weapon fighting). The point is that each one is different.... within the fighter class. The different types of fighters all feel different.
I am just not seeing it. Thry may feel different the first few game sessions yet imo players who choose from the 4 options all build their characters the same way and imo tend to play them the same way. Sure a player who picks the 2 handed option might take a feat from the trip monkey yet it will low on his list of feats. If one of my players took the trip monkey I know what he could do. It would pretty much be the same if a second person took a trip monkey.
On paper it looks like you have a lot of options yet in my play experience it was the oppsosite. Players who like to focus on one of the four builds will almost always feats, weapons and styles of play that the build is good at. Why would the 2 handed damage build player attempt a trip if he does more hitting with his 2 handed weapon. If you were able to ever DM a party where you can get all 4 Fighter types you might see more variety.
The 4e "i use my at will power to make an attack roll for 1d6 points of damage" felt very samey for both the wizard and the ranger.. that's across allegedly different classes.
True their is a small amount of sameness in the classes in 4E. Yet how is that different in this edition. A fighter still swings and hits usually with the most damaging weapon over and over. The mage usually use the most damaging spell. The Rogue always tries to backstab. You can do other things with the classes. Yet imo the system penalizes you fro doing so. A Fighter unless he multiclasses is not going to try and Tumble or cast a spell. The Mage is not going to wear heavy armor or get into melee range. Before 4E I personally think players fooled themselves into thinking their was no sameness
That's something with your wizards then, its not something forced on you by the system. I've seen (and been) blasty wizards, illusionists, SOD wizards, and summoners. (the latter more than dabbled in shapeshifting) They all play differently, and that's allowed (and even encouraged" in the system. A point blank shotting ray slinger rolls a d 20 and rolls enough damage dice to make it sound like thunder, overpowering obstacles with pure force. My summoner picked the best summon monster for a situation, picking the right tool for the right job to finesse the situation like an artiste going after a lock, controlling the battlefield from around the corner, or comming up with a solution so...
Wizards are different only that they have different class abilites if they specialize. The spell list is the same. A charm person cast by an enchanter is the same as one cast by a generalist mage. Except the one cast by the Enchanter might have a higher save value. In the end once you play the game long enough you see the sameness. Players using Summoners for example is only going to focus on feats and spells that pertain to summoning. How the classes are used can be different. The spells list and choices end up being the same. How many pplayers who take Evokers you know that would pass up taking a fireball in favor of a Phantasmal Killer spell. Or an illusonist taking fireball.
My observations are different, but I don't see how on earth you can think an evoker, an enchanter, and a summoner all play the same way.
They feel the same to me because beyond a few players who try to think outside of the box they are all made the same way. Powered by the same spells and feats and skill choices along with the same class blities. How many players you know do not take Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana. A fireball cast by one of the spell classes above is usually going to always be the same. Two Evokers at the same table sually end up doing the same thing.
If D&D ever became a point buy system than imo you would see true variety. Player A could model his fireball to be different from Player B. I once made a generalist mage who speciality was ice magic. His magic missles were icicles. Mage Armor was a from fitting piece of ice. While fun very time consuming.
What makes a role playing game fun, for me, is the ability to think outside the box. Battlefield control, unusual circumstances, grappling, tactical advantages, and doing things no computer can compensate for make a human adjudicator necessary and the game fun.
After reading this and I mean no insult 4E would have been perfect fit for you. I find that 4E has more of a tactical element than 3.5/PF imo ever had.
|
|
my impression:
WotC are in it for the money, the game is a means
Paizo are in it for the game, the money is a meansIn other words, the 3.5 -> 4 switch seemed mostly motivated by 'making people buy new books' whereas 3.5 -> PF seems motivated by 'making the game better'.
People need to stop thinking that the only reason tha Paizo created the rpg was to make a good rpg. It was that and to make a profit. Last time I checked Paizo was not a non-profit companmy. The Devs want to have fun while also making a living. Which means money with a successful company that releases qulaity profits.
it's always fun to read how if a poster hates a company their products suck and they are greedy. If they like a company it's above reproach and not in it for the moeny. Last time I checked Paizo still needs to make a profit to pay bills and employees an to fund new products.
In other words, the 3.5 -> 4 switch seemed mostly motivated by 'making people buy new books' whereas 3.5 -> PF seems motivated by 'making the game better'.
Who here really belives that a company would spend the better part of a year and half developing and testing a rpg not doing it also for moeny and to be successful. Last time I checked Paizo is not drowning in any mountains of cash.
True their is a small amount of sameness in the classes in 4E. Yet how is that different in this edition. A fighter still swings and hits usually with the most damaging weapon over and over. The mage usually use the most damaging spell. The Rogue always tries to backstab. You can do other things with the classes. Yet imo the system penalizes you fro doing so. A Fighter unless he multiclasses is not going to try and Tumble or cast a spell. The Mage is not going to wear heavy armor or get into melee range. Before 4E I personally think players fooled themselves into thinking their was no sameness
A SMALL amount? I specifically looked through the 4e PHB through all of the wizard spells. There were two categories of spells: damage, and "utility" spells. Of those utility spells you get to pick exactly 7 by time you were level 30, oh yeah and only 8 IIRC could be used outside of combat. I suggest you go through the exercise of leveling a 4e wizard from 1-30 and then level a PF wizard from 1-20. While I did not do such an exacting tally on the other classes in 4e, a quick skim through revealed a similar make up between ALL of the classes. Honestly the only real difference between class powers is in name and one sentence description. Paizo actually values classes being good at some things and being weak at others. While I have made the point that the wizard does teeter far too close to the line of "doing everything", the other classes really do have distinct feels to them.
Wizards are different only that they have different class abilites if they specialize. The spell list is the same. A charm person cast by an enchanter is the same as one cast by a generalist mage. Except the one cast by the Enchanter might have a higher save value.
That is patently false. A lot of people won't touch the enchantment school because of it's high level weakness. Also the enchanter goes about things very different from oh say a blaster or a necromancer. The enchanter deals with things by circumventing them. Simple case, NPC requires the PC to go in dungeon X and retrieve Y so that he may get Z. The enchanter goes: suggestion: how about not? The blaster blows up all the monsters with fireball. The necromancer sends in a small army of undead. Now keep in mind that while wizards have the same list to choose from, they may not choose all spells from it. Wizards will be lacking certain spells and will be strong in certain styles of spells as indicated by their specialty. Doubly is true for sorcerors or other spontaneous classes.
Players using Summoners for example is only going to focus on feats and spells that pertain to summoning.
Your ignorance is astounding. Even a feat such as central to summoning monsters as augment summoning, while highly suggested, is certainly not universal. It mostly depends on spell list. Whether they're going to keep the Eidolon out constantly or simply bring it out via summon eidolon spell or rely more heavily on SLA's will determine whether they take it (2 of the 3 will). Oh yes, and then there's the whole mix and match of pairing casting selections with eidolon builds.
Or an illusionist taking fireball.
Obviously you either had a lenient GM or never played an illusionist. If someone knows that you're an illusionist, suddenly your illusions are 100x less effective if you stick straight to using illusions. Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. So unless you want your opponents to be constantly getting disbelief saves against you, you need to throw something real at them just often enough. Illusions of fireballs are much more convincing if one them burns you.
I'm honestly just not convinced that you've had any significant experience behind the wheels of a caster.
In short, yes optimization does whittle away a lot of options. But at least wizard doesn't feel like a fighter like it does in 4e.
I am just not seeing it. Thry may feel different the first few game sessions yet imo players who choose from the 4 options all build their characters the same way and imo tend to play them the same way. Sure a player who picks the 2 handed option might take a feat from the trip monkey yet it will low on his list of feats. If one of my players took the trip monkey I know what he could do. It would pretty much be the same if a second person took a trip monkey.
But you've just admited to at least 4 options within the same class that all feel different from each other, even if the options themselves don't vary much compared to the same option. Compare this to 4e where even dramatically different classes start to feel alike.
True their is a small amount of sameness in the classes in 4E. Yet how is that different in this edition.
You have more differences WITHIN pathfinder classes than you have BETWEEN 4.0 classes.
A fighter still swings and hits usually with the most damaging weapon over and over. The mage usually use the most damaging spell.
Most optimal wizards do NOT use the most damaging spell. They use the spell that screws over the opposition the most. They're NOT the same thing.
The Rogue always tries to backstab.
Rogues, despite flavor text to the contrary, do tend to be rather stuck in the box. Its the reason i don't play them often.
You can do other things with the classes. Yet imo the system penalizes you fro doing so. A Fighter unless he multiclasses is not going to try and Tumble or cast a spell. The Mage is not going to wear heavy armor or get into melee range.
You really missed the boat for melee mages in 3.X The aforementioned conjurer would show up at the fighter's house for breakfast, use extend spell to buff the living hell out of them, and thus be a little low on spells when it hit the fan (there was another wizard in the party so it wasn't that big a deal). The wizards SOP upon being out of spells was to cast tensors transformation on himself, have his familiar polymorph him into a young adult red dragon and charge headlong into melee to grapple and chomp on his foes. I understand giant octopi and other things were worse uses of the polymorph spell.
Those kind of shenanigans are gone in pathfinder, but you can still find hybrid classes like the eldritch knight and dragon disciple mixing magic and melee.
Before 4E I personally think players fooled themselves into thinking their was no sameness
The only limitation on the sameness was the players, and i think your players were very limited.
That's something with your wizards then, its not something forced on you by the system. I've seen (and been) blasty wizards, illusionists, SOD wizards, and summoners. (the latter more than dabbled in shapeshifting) They all play differently, and that's allowed (and even encouraged" in the system. A point blank shotting ray slinger rolls a d 20 and rolls enough damage dice to make it sound like thunder, overpowering obstacles with pure force. My summoner picked the best summon monster for a situation, picking the right tool for the right job to finesse the situation like an artiste going after a lock, controlling the battlefield from around the corner, or comming up with a solution so...
Wizards are different only that they have different class abilites if they specialize. The spell list is the same.A charm person cast by an enchanter is the same as one cast by a generalist mage. Except the one cast by the Enchanter might have a higher save value. In the end once you play the game long enough you see the sameness.
Wizards do NOT have the same spell lists unless YOU CHOOSE to take the same spell lists over and over. A few old standby's like mage armor and magic missle always make the list, but once they level up a bit wizards acquire VASTLY different spell repertoires. Sure, every wizard can dust off charm person, but how many go for dominate person?
Players using Summoners for example is only going to focus on feats and spells that pertain to summoning. How the classes are used can be different. The spells list and choices end up being the same. How many pplayers who take Evokers you know that would pass up taking a fireball in favor of a Phantasmal Killer spell. Or an illusonist taking fireball. A fireball cast by one of the spell classes above is usually going to always be the same. Two Evokers at the same table sually end up doing the same thing.
This is ridiculous. If there's 4 different ways to play each class and 6 different classes you're looking at AT LEAST 20 or so different characters*... as opposed to 4e where the ranger and the mage start to feel the same for.. what.. 3 characters? That's before prestige classes and hybrids
They feel the same to me because beyond a few players who try to think outside of the box they are all made the same way.
Again, that's a player issue, not a system issue.
Powered by the same spells and feats and skill choices along with the same class abilities. How many players you know do not take Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana.
You're complaining about what they look like on paper, not how they work in game. Yes, there is a basic structure that you build on but its like complaining that mice and elephants look the same because they're all quadrupeds.
If D&D ever became a point buy system than imo you would see true variety. Player A could model his fireball to be different from Player B. I once made a generalist mage who speciality was ice magic. His magic missles were icicles. Mage Armor was a from fitting piece of ice. While fun very time consuming.
If thats what you want try champions. I highly suggest either using their hero builder or taking a class in differential equations.
After reading this and I mean no insult 4E would have been perfect fit for you. I find that 4E has more of a tactical element than 3.5/PF imo ever had.
But no variety. Your idea of the lack of variety in 3.5 and pathfinder seems to be coming from a combination of non varied players and a very skewed definition of what variety is.
*yes, i can do multiplication. But there's not much difference between an archer ranger and an archer fighter and a few other builds that overlap a fair bit.
For me, it came down to one tiny little thing. The Ioun torch. It's a simple and logical item. It was a staple in my 3.5 campaign, something we had added to our world independently.
It's inclusion told me that this edition was written by people who'd played.
Our group has played 3.x for years. We just finished up an AP using 3.5 and decided to switch to Pathfinder from now on. Pathfinder is very similar to 3.x and that alone sold us on it.
Now that we've run a few sessions with Pathfinder I'd say we're more than happy with our new gaming system and have been enjoying ourselves immensely.
One of the players from our group also has a different group that he DMs for. Back when 4e came out he was gung-ho for it and went out and bought books for use with his other group ( we were in the middle of a 3.5 campaign and didn't wanna switch ).
He completely scrapped the campaign he was running and everyone switched to 4e. At our session he would talk about how his other group was taking to 4e and whatnot. Eventually, he didn't talk about it anymore but they stuck to it.
Pathfinder hit the shelves but it took us a while till we saw the Core book at the hobby shop and we we're uber excited at how similar it was to 3.x. A couple of us bought the Core book and showed up singing it's praises. A couple people were reluctant to even look in the book for fear of disappointment. Eventually they believed our talks of 3.x similarities and looked thru the books to find *surprise!* we weren't kidding.
Now, all of us including the 4e DM have switched to Pathfinder and we're all nice and happy. Save for a few gripes about undead not being immune to crits and other little things people are hard to conform to.
I ask questions and they respond quickly and politly, and repetedly. We have conversations :) They are friendly and listen to sugestions and even tell us about their game sessions :) And give us advise on things that arnt directly game system mechanics related, like what does this Demon do in this world etc.
My first contact with DnD was with 3.0, an when it moved on to 3.5 I really liked the changes. The details were very good, the kind of intricate system that I could fall in love with.
Then news of 4E came over the horizon, and I figured it could only get better. I bought the Player's HAndbook on day 1, since that was for players, opened it..... and found myself wondering what the *beep* I was looking at. This wasn't even remotely what I'd grown used to at that point. This felt more like something halfway to either a card-based game, or World of Warcraft, neither of which had any business with DnD. I pretty much gave up on DnD after just one book of the new edition.
Now mind you, Pathfinder adventure modules had been coming out for a while at that point, but I just tought it was purely a new setting with the same old 3.5 rules, so I pretty much figured there was no point in taking a closer look at soemthign that used a system that was no longer going to get supported.
Then I caught wind of a new core rulebook for Pathfinder, and I was midly intrigued, but I reserved judgement for when i saw the books. They eventually arrived at my local gameshop, I very cautiously opened the PH.... and fell in love. These were the rules and character classes I had fallen in love with, but now even better. Been sticking to them ever since.
So, no, I can't really tell you much about 4E, except that I abandoned it after one book. You choose for yourself what you want, but if you like me came from the 3/3.5 era, 4E is probably not your cup of tea.
What Bran Ravensong said.
Why am I opting for PF over 4ed. (and PF isn't a given - I have a LOT of 3.x material and could easily run games under those rules for another three lifetimes)
I don't play CCGs or MMOs. Heck, I don't even play very many video games of any sort.
My players who were the biggest fans of 4ed sang highest praises of how 4ed improved parts of the rules I didn't care about and how it nixed parts I cared the most about.
I didn't like how WotC took Dragon and Dungeon back in-house and online.
I didn't like how WotC handled the release of 4.0.
I didn't like how I felt lied to about the future of one of my favorite games by WotC.
I'm convinced Hasbro could screw up a soup sandwich. It seems to me that WotC handled D&D far better before Hasbro got their hooks in it to use it as an income stream. Paizo seems to handle their business from a Craftsman point of view rather than from a Corporate point of view. This means they seem to consider their customers as having a choice in how they spend their dollars/yen/euros/pesos - therefore the company has to turn out the best possible version of what the majority of customers want. (as opposed to the Corporate model wherein the company assumes customers are going to spend money on their products, "so let's figure out how to get as much of their money as we can")
In short, 4ed has not been presented as suiting my play-style/interests and Hasbro/WotC has not impressed me as respecting the individual player/consumer. PF is presented - by both publisher and players - as a continuation of my playstyle and Paizo seems to be far more in touch with its consumer-base. I'll pick shopping with folks who act like they want my business over people who *expect* my business every time.
Soup sammiches.... Mmmmmmm... I better go make some grilled cheeses and tomato soup.
Honestly, 'cause "D&D Saga Edition" doesn't exist.
That said, Pathfinder is good, too. ;) And with Hero Lab and [url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com[/url], even prepping for my relatively high level campaign is fairly painless.
Props to Hyrum Savage for convincing me it was the way to go. :)
-The Gneech
I chose Pathfinder because of the awesome free Pathfinder beta. I stuck with Pathfinder because the developers post on the forums. I'm still with Pathfinder because the developers frequently have play-tests for their new classes or ideas to see what everyone thinks before printing it in their books.
Just shows to me that they care.