A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th edition

[SuperSlayer]

I feel bad for the people that tried to get into 4th edition before finding out about Pathfinder. I think 4th edition D&D is a joke, and an insult to the original game. I recommend people that are disatisfied with their poorly designed 4th edition game to sell it and buy the Pathfinder core rulebook. This is the best advice I can give to a dissapointed gamer of the poorly executed 4th edition D&D.

[Scott Betts]

Sissyl wrote:

Okay, more ramblings about why I do not like 4th.

When you decide to have a game about the exploits of an action hero group, all of them utterly unique (how did these people even meet one another, btw?), there is a definite limit to what you can play. Just as an example, Heroes of horror for 3rd had suggestions about how you could make a neat horror campaign where the PCs were all normal people. I actually did, and it was great. That would not have been remotely possible in 4th edition, just as an example. Unless you tore out most of the character-making rules, of course.

Might I direct you to the 4th Edition official rules for 0th-level characters.

But you're right. D&D is not a great system for playing normal people. D&D is a game of heroic adventure.

Again, though, you're sort of glossing over what you had been discussing earlier. It would be nice if you would re-examine some of your previous criticism. It would also be nice if you asked yourself why you've chosen to level that criticism in the first place, knowing that some (or much of it) was untrue.

Quote:

A bigger, corresponding problem for me is that just like an action movie, every location, every item, is Fantastic. You do not fight a band of goblins, you fight firegrenadeslinger goblins. You do not search an abandoned moathouse, you search the Keep on the Shadowfell, a place on another plane. The mundane is needed to provide contrast, but 4th goes for Fantastic all the way.

I don't think that's really true. Even in the adventure you reference, two floors are spent on goblins and orcs before you reach the ritual chamber where the Shadowfell really makes an appearance. Goblins and orcs are sort of the D&D mainstay of "mundane".

Quote:

As for points of light, I find it jarring that every sage knows what happened aeons ago on other planes, but nobody knows what happened fifteen years ago here.

I don't think that this is true either, and it seems to me like you have some notions of what Points of Light is all about that are simply incorrect. I'm not sure why you've made these assumptions about the setting.

Quote:

You're right that it has a cosmology, but without setting backstory, it feels flat to me. I guess having handy keeps in the wilderness to start from is classic, but is it necessary to stay with that concept?

No, and it doesn't. Points of Light is actually quite well fleshed-out at this point.

Quote:

Bottom line is, there are tons of monastic orders, distant mage schools, knight chapterhouses, but nobody lives in a city anymore??? Again, with the suspension of disbelief.

Large cities exist. Just not in the Nentir Vale.

Quote:

Creatures are no different. They are defined by what they can do in the action movie, not by anything that could get in the way of using their stats when you need a monster of the appropriate level.

Er...I don't even know what this means.

Quote:

Next up is the art. While there are some elements I like, such as how dwarven women look, the art is designed around one theme: action. While this gives a theme that suits the game, I do not like it, I find it makes the art sterile and unevocative. The pics of monsters are typically good, though, because they don't all tumble, attack something or jump somewhere. Perhaps it is also a question of me not liking the style of the lead artist.

There is no accounting for taste.

Quote:

Another point in disfavour is that it is a single-class system. Yeah, there are the multiclassing feats, but that means very little because they don't do enough.

The designers recognized this, and introduced hybrid classing as a way to directly address this issue.

[ciretose]

Scott Betts wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Only if you don't follow the rules for diplomacy.

"Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute "

Where in the rules does it say that you have to talk in-character for that 1 full minute in order to make a Diplomacy check?

Crafting takes days, but you don't make your PCs act out their crafting jobs in real time.

Are you sure this isn't just an attempt to save face for the Diplomacy rules?

http://dndsrd.net/skillsAll.html#diplomacy.

So yes I am sure it is not an attempt to save face. Particularly since I didn't bring it up, you did.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Sissyl wrote:

When you decide to have a game about the exploits of an action hero group, all of them utterly unique (how did these people even meet one another, btw?), there is a definite limit to what you can play. Just as an example, Heroes of horror for 3rd had suggestions about how you could make a neat horror campaign where the PCs were all normal people. I actually did, and it was great. That would not have been remotely possible in 4th edition, just as an example. Unless you tore out most of the character-making rules, of course.

Ironically, just this week WotC released rules for running level 0 PCs through an intro campaign as normal dudes.

Like with 3rd Edition, starting PCs are already basically heroes. Like with 3rd Edition, you can come up with rules that will let you step things back a level towards 'commoner' and go from there.

Regarding how did these people meet... again, I'm not sure where there is any difference between that in 3rd Edition or 4E. In either one, that question is typically settled by either the party, the campaign, the DM, the setting, or the adventure... and pretty much never by the system itself.

Sissyl wrote:

A bigger, corresponding problem for me is that just like an action movie, every location, every item, is Fantastic. You do not fight a band of goblins, you fight firegrenadeslinger goblins.

Look, I get that some of the compound names for monsters get silly. Just like I can never wrap my head around ixitchilixlicsliks. But while there are a bunch of them, they aren't omnipresent, and not every name is inherently absurd.

The dudes who fling firegrenades? Are kobolds. They are called "Kobold Slingers". Along with Kobold Minions and Kobold Skirmishers. Is that really all that fantastic?

Their skilled warriors are the Kobold Dragonshields and Kobold Wyrmpriests. Yes, a bit more fancy. But then, these guys are the equivalent of levelled kobolds - something that you didn't really have MMs provide previously. Either way, it isn't about the name - it is about kobolds that are an actual threat.

If you want the den of kobolds the PCs plow through with ease? You can still have that with a pile of minions. If you want some kobolds to actually make the PCs take notice, you have their Wyrmpriest leader and his bodyguards. And if you instead want a bunch of individually weak kobolds who still make the PCs cry, you use slingers and skirmishers and minions... swarming in tunnels filled with nasty, vicious, evil traps.

All of these are valid approaches. Some of them can be fantastic, sure, but that is hardly the only style of play.

Sissyl wrote:

You do not search an abandoned moathouse, you search the Keep on the Shadowfell, a place on another plane. The mundane is needed to provide contrast, but 4th goes for Fantastic all the way.

The, uh... the Keep on the Shadowfell is... an abandoned keep. It's not in the Shadowfell - it is a ruin, down the street from the town of Winterhaven. It has an evil cultist trying to open up a portal to the Shadowfell so he can unleash the power of the demon Orcus upon the world.

You know, as opposed to... an abandoned moathouse. It is a ruin, down the street from the village of Hommlet. It has evil cultists planning to open the way to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and unleash the power of the demoness Zuggtmoy upon the world.

Yeah, KotS probably has more grind than is good for it. But I'm not sure the examples you've given are actually accurate, here.

Which... honestly, yes, 4E probably does trend more towards high adventure by default. But that isn't the only style of play - as the several campaigns released thus far show. And it actually has specific support and mechanics for different approaches as well, including low-magic games.

Either way, though, the Keep on the Shadowfell doesn't seem to be the adventure you believe it to be.

Sissyl wrote:

As for points of light, I find it jarring that every sage knows what happened aeons ago on other planes, but nobody knows what happened fifteen years ago here. You're right that it has a cosmology, but without setting backstory, it feels flat to me. I guess having handy keeps in the wilderness to start from is classic, but is it necessary to stay with that concept? Bottom line is, there are tons of monastic orders, distant mage schools, knight chapterhouses, but nobody lives in a city anymore??? Again, with the suspension of disbelief.

Wait... your first objection is that the game is too fantastic and extraplanar? Your second complaint is that the intro setting is a small village in the wilderness? I'm not quite sure I understand.

Either way, the game absolutely has cities. Both in the default setting, and many examples in the various campaigns. Where did you get the idea it was otherwise? Or that there is no immediate backstory for different locations?

Sissyl wrote:

Creatures are no different. They are defined by what they can do in the action movie, not by anything that could get in the way of using their stats when you need a monster of the appropriate level.

What is an example of what you feel defines a monster? Is it the background and ecology of such creatures? That still exists in 4E. Some details are less focused on, but the core of the creature is often still there. Especially in MM2 and on.

Sissyl wrote:

Next up is the art. While there are some elements I like, such as how dwarven women look, the art is designed around one theme: action. While this gives a theme that suits the game, I do not like it, I find it makes the art sterile and unevocative. The pics of monsters are typically good, though, because they don't all tumble, attack something or jump somewhere. Perhaps it is also a question of me not liking the style of the lead artist.

Actually, I agree somewhat here. Some of the art I do like, but I wish it wasn't the only thing we got. They have been better since the beginning - DMG2, the Dark Sun Book, a couple others come to mind that have actual moments other than 'action'. But yeah, this is an area where they had one style they were going for, and while it isn't bad, more diversity would be nice.

Sissyl wrote:

Another point in disfavour is that it is a single-class system. Yeah, there are the multiclassing feats, but that means very little because they don't do enough.

The real strength is actually not the multi-classing itself, but the greater flexibility via the feat/skill system in general. If I want my fighter to be a skilled thief, I don't have to switch over and multiclass rogue - I can spend feats and become perfectly capable of running along rooftops, sneaking through alleys, picking pockets, disabling traps, evading fireballs, uncannily dodging attacks... etc. I can build myself around wielding a rapier and using my dexterity to stab people in sensitive spots. Without multiclassing, I don't get to call out "Sneak Attack!" when I do so... but if I can build the concept properly, do the specific mechanics really matter?

Some concepts were, admittedly, harder to pull off at the start. Pretty much all of them have since been addressed. These days, I find 4E incredibly versatile in terms of what it can represent and how flexible it is when it comes to character concept - especially with the addition of themes and backgrounds.

It is definitely a different approach. And, as with most changes, one that does have trade-offs - some stuff may indeed be harder to portray, and some earlier concepts don't always translate over smoothly. On the other hand, it can pull off concepts that earlier editions had trouble with, and it is much harder to accidently assemble an ineffective character.

I certainly don't object if you prefer the 3rd Edition multiclassing system - they are indeed different, and each has its pros and cons. I don't object to someone saying they prefer the specific approach of the more open-ended multiclassing system... I just tend to object when the reasons someone says they don't like the 4E multiclassing system is because 'it hinders RP' or 'it can't build any interesting concepts' or 'is patterned after MMOs', and similar stuff like that.

[Matthew Koelbl]

ciretose wrote:

http://dndsrd.net/skillsAll.html#diplomacy[/url].

So yes I am sure it is not an attempt to save face. Particularly since I didn't bring it up, you did.

Speaking as a former Diplomancer, I'm pretty sure you could attempt to use it in one-round at a penalty. A penalty that many characters invested in the skill (or anyone capable of casting Glibness) could easily overcome.

[ciretose]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

ciretose wrote:

http://dndsrd.net/skillsAll.html#diplomacy[/url].

So yes I am sure it is not an attempt to save face. Particularly since I didn't bring it up, you did.

Speaking as a former Diplomancer, I'm pretty sure you could attempt to use it in one-round at a penalty. A penalty that many characters invested in the skill (or anyone capable of casting Glibness) could easily overcome.

You could at a -10 penalty.

But it could not be used on PCs, which was his argument about making uberdiplomacy monsters, and more on this topic it isn't in Pathfinder anymore.

[Scott Betts]

ciretose wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Only if you don't follow the rules for diplomacy.

"Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute "

Where in the rules does it say that you have to talk in-character for that 1 full minute in order to make a Diplomacy check?

Crafting takes days, but you don't make your PCs act out their crafting jobs in real time.

Are you sure this isn't just an attempt to save face for the Diplomacy rules?

http://dndsrd.net/skillsAll.html#diplomacy.

So yes I am sure it is not an attempt to save face. Particularly since I didn't bring it up, you did.

No, I know that it requires an in-game minute. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing your implication that you actually have to spend a real-life minute talking in-character in order to make a Diplomacy check. That is not supported by the rules, just as spending 8 hours pantomiming and describing how your character works a forge isn't required to craft a longsword.

[phantom1592]

Seems like a very angry thread... so i'll not read all of it. Try to hold on to SOME good feelings today :)

That said, I'll still contribute.

I've only glanced at the 4th edition stuff, so I've never actually PLAYED a game of it. But I don't really need to. THIS is what "I" don't like about 4th edition.

1) It doesn't look like D&D. When they switched from 2nd to 3rd... there were massive conversion issues. However the races were still the same, the world was still the same. It was a rules overhaul for an existing world.

As a massive fan of elves, when i picked up the rule books and saw that they cut out the moon elves and gold elves Messed with the Sylvan and I never saw any mention of the aquatic ones... I imagine they are still around somewhere...

Now it's like the there are 'wood elves' and there are 'Eladrin' which were originally a planar elf creature... but now takes the place of half the other elves..

it doesn't make a lot of sense. WORSE, they back tracked their history to retcon them from the begining... Sooooo half my favorite characters suddenly got blended up and spit out.

I was immediately turned off of 4th edition.

2) Destroying the realms. More importantly the time jump. Not only does it screw with any of the games we had running right now... but it boots the continuity of any of the current realms books. I may have never played 3.x games.. but i still loved the world and reading the novels. The fact that it pretty much put a bullet to anymore Danillo and Arilyn stories and killed off half the Salvatore cast, REALLY annoyed me...

THAT's what I don't like about 4th edition. Actual game mechanics, I have no idea... It was the gutting of the long established history and fluff that bothered me.

And to help balance things out. There are things I'm not fond of in Pathfinder.

The overwhelming reliance on the chess board and 5' move increments....

the overwhelming pile of rules. Rules for this... rules for that... Rules for itching your nose... Which causes an attack of opportunity ;)

There is NO such thing as a perfect game system. I've played at least 12 different game SYSTEMS and every one has things I'd like to change. I still think my favorite is the massively house-ruled 2E game....

[SuperSlayer]

It doesn't make sense to me to advertise a product on a competitors website. It's like advertising Mcdonald's in a Wendy's. My comments are my opinions and if I inluence others that's their fault not mine.

[deinol]

Mournblade94 wrote:

I played TOrg for a break, except I can't even rememebr how it was played now.

The Kislev stuff came out in the 90's I think. I wanted to play it, but I could just not get a group together. I had my regular D&D game, but we were very story heavy and none of them wanted to give WHFRP a try. WHFRP was the FIRSt game I tried after AD&D. No that is incorrect, Marvel Superheroes was the first.

That game kicks absolute Ass! I love Marvel Superheroes. Such a good game.

They really should bring the Marvel Superheroes game back. Although I'm sure half the license is owned by Marvel...

Still, I would think Wizards would be able to secure the rights and 4E would be a perfect chassis for a supers game.

I'm probably going to take a break from Pathfinder when my 4+ year campaign wraps up "soon" (in 4-5 months). There are a ton of games I've been itching to play.

To name a few:
Eclipse Phase
Earthdawn
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch
Dark Sun
Gamma World
Dresdan Files
Traveller
Mutants and Masterminds
Dragon Age

Too many awesome games, never enough time.

[The 8th Dwarf]

SuperSlayer wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me to advertise a product on a competitors website. It's like advertising Mcdonald's in a Wendy's. My comments are my opinions and if I inluence others that's their fault not mine.

It works people either convert the APs (Paizo's primary money maker) to their favorite system or they pick PRPG after being attracted to the website. The price and quality of PRPG being the honey trap.

It works for Apple....

[Gorbacz]

SuperSlayer wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me to advertise a product on a competitors website. It's like advertising Mcdonald's in a Wendy's. My comments are my opinions and if I inluence others that's their fault not mine.

Breaking news: Paizo is selling WotC products. They also advertise it often.

[SuperSlayer]

Good for them it's their loss. Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.

[Scott Betts]

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

People like Scott no matter how messianic, pedantic and zealous he is

This is the closest I've ever been to being described like a cult leader! #birthofasupervillain

Quote:

Driving him and the other 4E fans off the boards is not to anybodies benefit.

I don't think anything is in any danger of driving me off these forums. I'm here because of Paizo, not because of its fans. As long as Paizo is awesome, I'll be here to show my support. As for the rest of the 4e crowd here, the years have thickened their skins. There's no trolling that will out-troll what we've already seen. ;p

[Steve Geddes]

SuperSlayer wrote:

Good for them it's their loss.

Selling 4th edition products at a loss? That would be silly.

Quote:

Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.

They arent opposing products. My 4th edition game requires Paizo products (the way I like to run it). Paradox, huh?

[Scott Betts]

SuperSlayer wrote:

Good for them it's their loss. Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.

You're deluding yourself if you think 4e and Pathfinder are opposed. And, really, how is 4e stealing sales - from Paizo's own website, no less! - if 4e is such a terrible game compared to Pathfinder?

[SuperSlayer]

I'm not going to put chocolate syrup on my eggs and bacon. I don't need some 4th edition, some Pathfinder, and some 3.0 to play some D&D. The people that go there are ridiculous.

[The 8th Dwarf]

Scott Betts wrote:

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

People like Scott no matter how messianic, pedantic and zealous he is

This is the closest I've ever been to being described like a cult leader! #birthofasupervillain

Quote:

Driving him and the other 4E fans off the boards is not to anybodies benefit.

I don't think anything is in any danger of driving me off these forums. I'm here because of Paizo, not because of its fans. As long as Paizo is awesome, I'll be here to show my support. As for the rest of the 4e crowd here, the years have thickened their skins. There's no trolling that will out-troll what we've already seen. ;p

I am not worried about you - you can take care of your self... It new people that play 4E that pop on to the Paizo boards to see what it is all about and walk into a litlle edition war that's still going on way after the original war ended. Maybe we need the emperor to give a personal order for the warriors to surrender like the Japanese hold outs at the end of WWII.

[Steve Geddes]

SuperSlayer wrote:

I'm not going to put chocolate syrup on my eggs and bacon. I don't need some 4th edition, some Pathfinder, and some 3.0 to play some D&D. The people that go there are ridiculous.

Or we like chocolate on our bacon. It's hard to form a view without tasting it, isnt it?

[SuperSlayer]

IMO from what I've seen 4th edition is the kiddy board game of D&D with little cardboard figures, and candymaps for people that can't imagine a scenerio without a board in front of them. The artwork looks nice but the prices they charge for their skinny books is outrageous. I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition so why should I want to play it especially after owning the pathfinder books or Gary Gygax's amazing 2nd edition? At least they fill their books with your moneys worth of pages. If you want to go out and blow all kinds of money on 4th editions multiple book scheme then go right ahead I won't be the one to stop you.

[deinol]

SuperSlayer wrote:

IMO from what I've seen 4th edition is the kiddy board game of D&D with little cardboard figures, and candymaps for people that can't imagine a scenerio without a board in front of them.

Quick, hide the Pathfinder Beginner's Box.

SuperSlayer wrote:

The artwork looks nice but the prices they charge for their skinny books is outrageous.

Quick, hide the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Books, Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Pathfinder Player Companions and Pathfinder Modules.

SuperSlayer wrote:

I have read 100's of comments bashing 4th edition so why should I want to play it especially after owning the pathfinder books or Gary Gygax's amazing 2nd edition?

Gary Gygax didn't write 2nd Edition. He got kicked out of TSR before then.

SuperSlayer wrote:

At least they fill their books with your moneys worth of pages. If you want to go out and blow all kinds of money on 4th editions multiple book scheme then go right ahead I won't be the one to stop you.

I know, $20 for a 96 page book is outrageous. I would never spend that monthly.