| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate your coming to these boards to seek information, but it is highly likely that you will receive a vast range of opinions ranging from "it's awesomely balanced now!" to "You may as well not even roll up a martial character." And everything in between.
Go to your local gaming store and observe a game in action, or join one and test it out.
I've played every game you mentioned and enjoyed them all. But I have never been in the search for the perfect game system, I've only been in the search for having a good time with my friends away from work and worries at home on an evening or weekend. They all do a GREAT job of accomplishing that goal for me.
YMMV
|
I am not sure how much Pathfinder corrected the things that hurt your pleasure at playing 3.5.
I feel however that forewarned is forearmed. If you find something in the way your GM and fellow players play this game that does not suit you, share it with them and find together a solution that will ensure fun for everyone :-)
Actually, the people who hate on 4e loudly are fewer than you'd think here.
Many of us recognize it as an attempt at progress with some good ideas and some poorly implemented ones, but that it somehow lost the "feel" of D&D in favor of something else. From my minimal exposure, I'd say it's a fine game in its own right, it just left a hole for a lot of people that Pathfinder filled. (And the OGL was a big deal for me, that's how I came to PF)
Anyway, Pathfinder has all the same problems as 3.5, some less pronounced, some more so. The same solutions work just as well as they did back then. People who are truly happy with Pathfinder as a system are the people who are satisfied with those solutions.
If what you want is a game that functions with an absolute minimum of GM intervention in the face of players attempting extreme system abuse, then no, Pathfinder is not for you.
If you never had a problem with "Rule 0" interventions once in a while, or if your group is constructive and friendly, then it is a great game, just as 3.5 was.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two years ago I found my self in the position you seem to be in now. I was very disillusioned with the direction that “essentials” was taking the game, Pathfinder was new and shiny (and frankly had tons of energy and momentum) so we decided to check it out. I played quite a bit of 3.5 (mainly casters) and I find that your position on the system is pretty spot on. But I played FAR more 4th edition. I loved 4th for what it was. it provided our gaming group with a balanced tactical adventure RPG. It was perfect for us….for YEARS. But something was missing. A bit of freedom, a bit of roleplay, and bit of unbalanced chaos. I don’t buy the argument that 4th edition inhibits roleplay. A group skilled at roleplay will do just fine with 4th. But for groups (like mine) that struggle with roleplay, 4th edition suffers a bit from the “here is your hammer, now wait for the nail” structure. My players felt confined by the “encounter” structure of the system (people rarely used their “powers” outside of combat…some groups do fine here, but mine had issues). And as the DM, I both LOVED and HATED that I pretty much had to plan out encounters. There were WAY more “set piece” encounters under my 4th game. But the world seemed bland (A LOT of this has to do on my own reliance on Wizards provided world books…lets face it…the world books under 4th were horrible). I told stories, but the “campaign” felt lacking. And it never filled that “we are playing D&D hole” that hole that I remember how D&D felt and played when we were in high school.
We switched two years ago to Pathfinder. It has been a blast. It has that “old” D&D feel. And cleans up “some” of the issues with 3.5. The system is far from perfect but our games feel more organic and include quite a bit more role-play ( I don’t know why). Not to say that we have not encountered issues. Our party archer (and archers in general are brokenly powerful), our cavalier has found the mounted combat to be a confusing mess (and he too tops the power curve in most situations). Both of these issues (and any issues in PF) require something to fix. And that thing is an aware DM. Notice that both my problem PCs are not caster classes which is encouraging, however if class balance is a priority for you, you will not find it here. I will say that no player has felt useless though. They have each shined at different times in different situations.
I have thought quite a bit about how my table has approached both PF and 4th and I have distilled it down to a Top Down (DM managed) vs. Bottom Up (Player focused) game approach. I fully realize that any table can run their game however they want. I am speaking in broad generalizations. In 4th the game was fairly balanced (Player focused) and my job as DM was mainly story teller and to describe how the PC’s interacted with the world. In Pathfinder, I find that in order to have a good game, I also have to manage the rules as well. I don’t blanket allow most things at my table (like I did under 4th). I disallow certain classes / races / certain feats / traits / certain combat rules / equipment ... etc. It requires a heavier hand. And here is your balance. If the rules don’t fit with your table, it is up to you to adjust it. Keep it loose, don’t play it like a board game.
And in my opinion the game is better for it. Our world feels lived in. It is messier and more chaotic. It is also more dangerous. When we play Pathfinder it feels less like we are playing a game or playing through a set story and more like we are crafting a world.
To sum up. We found 4th to be a better “game”, but we find Pathfinder to be a better “experience” by a wide margin. Both rule sets are good for different things. I think it ultimately comes down to what you want to play and how you play it. That is my experience.
PS: Either way, even if you keep with the 4th rules (and they would require a fair amount of conversion). Check out the Paizo Adventure Paths. They are amazing!
I currently run a 4E D&D game. I know, I know, you probably all hate it and I'm assuming you don't want to hear about that. Thing is, WoTC has all but stopped supporting 4E already (we still have DDI- for now) and 5E (I will NEVER call it "Next"- what a load of bull) is a disjointed mess to say the least. I shouldn't even get started.
I feel your pain, as do many. 3E was my prefered version of the game but without it being supported it isnt very practical to keep going for my group (adventures and setting material being the most important loss). Which is why I am playing pathfidner.
The question is whether to keep playing a dead game that for all its faults we know works or try something different. Losing the online support will hurt a lot, but we managed without it back in the old days. I tried to talk the group into trying Mutants & Masterminds but it's starting to look like the only thing we can all agree on is some version of D&D.
Naturally, Pathfinder is the top contender. I've even gone so far as to shell out for the book. It's a very nice looking book and does seem to be well made, though it's just plain too big IMO.
Here I agree, I wish the core rulebook stayed in 2 parts myself, the one book is just too big. Be careful with it, its sheer size means it will start to wear. My 2 original printing copies are more or less in shambles now, though they have been well used.
Here's what worries me: I left 3E behind for a reason- because the whole thing was stupid broken. Monte Cook deliberately overpowered the casters and underpowered everything else- by A LOT. Buffs were too important (which only made the casters even more dominant) and there were times when we literally spent more time buffing than fighting! Or buffing strategy would be more important than combat tactics. 3E DEMANDED system mastery- especially after about level 12 or so, you minmaxed the crap out of everything or you were dead. You played the right class the right way with the right gear or you were completely useless 90% of the time. I'm not eager to go back to that.
When I see that Wish is in Pathfinder (just for example) I'm frankly not encouraged.
So how similar is Pathfinder to 3.5? To what extent did Paizo fix things and actually balance the game? Game balance is very important to me. That's the main reason I prefer 4E despite all its flaws. I know perfect balance is impossible, but it certainly needs to be better than any other version of D&D I've ever seen.
THough some spells were toned down and some effort was put into bringing up martial classes, the problems you mention are still there. Buffs are powerful, casters have dynamic awesome powers, and pure martials have sharp bits of metal.
The one saving grace is that there are alot of blends of martial and supernatural power out there. The ones that really lose out are the rogue, fighter, cavalier and monk. Every other class also has buffs and other supernatural abilities mixed into their martial abilities (or they are pure casters.
Barbarians, Paladins, Ninjas, Inquisitors, Bards, Magi and Alchemists are all very well balanced classes in my opinion. They mix various amounts of martial prowess with supernatural or magical abilities
Support is also important to me though. Paizo clearly stands behind its product.
No one supports their products like paizo does. They line up several product lines to work with eachother. They dont just release a rulebook. When they release mythic adventures, they launched the mythic adventure path, they included mythic content in their campaign setting line and the new bestiary is going to have mythic monsters. Same went for thier asian flair during the jade regeant adventure path. We didnt just get ninjas and samurai and eastern weapons in ultimage combat, we got the adventure path, we got a pair of campaign setting books about the asian continent, we got miniatures, pawns, and other modules about Tien Sha. Everything works together.
Also it's probably easier to find players for Pathfinder than anything else these days.
For now its the #1 roleplaying game, so yea thats likely.
Granted, I probably wouldn't be DMing anymore anyway- I'm getting a bit burned out and too busy, but we do have at least one guy who can run Pathfinder.
Paizo does alot for dms, including releasing some of the best published adventures I have seen or played in. For me at least it helps with dm burnout.
Thanks for your help and sorry if I come across as too angry or bitter. It's just that I've invested a lot into this game over 20 years.
No worries. I am truly sorry for 4E fans. I wanted them to have the game they like too. As I've said before, just because its not my prefered game doesnt mean it didnt do good things or have value. Its sad the WotC dropped for Next.
There's a balance. The more that a game system includes, the easier it is to break.
For me, 4e had a lot of good ideas and components, but each time I hit the 'can't do that' wall, it was horribly jarring. Easy to play though.
Pathfinder is a looser game, and requires a more active manager of a GM. But more options, and that's what I like.
Try it, you might like it. And if not, try Savage Worlds, or GURPS, or Champions, or Sorcerer, or any of the games at The Forge...
My group switched from 4E to Pathfinder a few months ago. At first, many of us weren't sure, but they quickly changed their minds when they realized how much more flexible character creation is and how many character concepts they could pull off. I personally disliked 4E because I felt like my character wasn't actually growing and getting stronger. Leveling up was boring.
For balance, I admire Paizo's approach to classes. To prevent the bloat of 3.5e, Paizo very rarely introduces new classes. Instead, they try to focus on supporting existing ones, usually by adding archetypes, which are class variations that swap certain class features. They also try to keep the rule books separate from the splatbooks.
The only way to know for sure is to try it.
I liked 3.5... I did. Our group tried 4e for a few months and then summarily switched to pathfinder.
Frankly I think paizo fixed a LOT. martial vs caster disparity is way better. Still exists but it is way better. There are some legacy issues (for me mostly related to action economy stuff and vancian casting systems) that are what they are... every game has its flaws.
But I can say that I really love granularity. The complete lack of which drove me away from 5e during the playtest. Pathfinder has a TON of rules.. and system mastery can be an issue I suppose, but mastery only really comes up for some of the wackier builds. Taking a very standard path will not gimp anyone.
If you are worried about wish and its ilk, take a look at all the old spells you disliked on the SRD. Pretty much all of them have been toned down quite a bit since 3.5
Still, play it for yourself. Its popular for a reason. Particularly if you don't have much time to GM... the published adventures for pathfinder are top notch.
Here's what worries me: I left 3E behind for a reason- because the whole thing was stupid broken. Monte Cook deliberately overpowered the casters and underpowered everything else- by A LOT. Buffs were too important (which only made the casters even more dominant) and there were times when we literally spent more time buffing than fighting! Or buffing strategy would be more important than combat tactics. 3E DEMANDED system mastery- especially after about level 12 or so, you minmaxed the crap out of everything or you were dead. You played the right class the right way with the right gear or you were completely useless 90% of the time. I'm not eager to go back to that.
I had more things to say about the rest of your post but the above quoted paragraph sticks out to me, and I have this to say. We play role-playing *games*. A game is inherently different from a sport or some other kind of contest. A role-playing game is nothing more than what the participants make of it, and it demands absolutely nothing. In a fantasy game, we can get swept away by our own notions rather easily. Thats one of the allures, right? Set gaming-group ground rules if you must, but please *please* remember that if you're experiencing more negative than positive then possibly you are doing something wrong.
|
Personally I can't speak to 4E because I've never played it. I took a look at the rules, they didn't seem to by my thing so I went on my way. I never thought for a moment that the players who did like it were dumb or wrong for doing so. (I do however have something of a running personal gag where I will tell someone with whom I disagree that they are entitled to their wrong opinion. Not being serious mind you but most of the time people catch on quick that I'm just joking)
I like Pathfinder because it lets be build the character I see in my head. I get a lot grief at times from some of my friends because I don't build my characters to be minmaxed, I'll take a feat for RP reasons instead of the most mechanically beneficial one, and they've said "well you could have just role played that". To which I generally want to respond "I did. That's why I took the feat."
So yeah. Welcome to the fold man. Balance is something you may have to work on as a group, but the game is fun and I've generally had a blast in most home games I've played in.
(Oh if you like two-handed weapons, take a look at the Earthbreaker *evil grin* heh heh heh it's my favorite...2d6 x3 crit martial hammer. Barbarian make smashy smash)
|
Many of the spells are altered in Pathfinder and you really have to do a deep dive to learn all the changes. For instance, you mention that Wish is in Pathfinder, but it cannot be used to create magic items anymore (at least, not as a "safe use") and that was one of the biggest abuses of that spell. So now, wishing for an item could simply deposit the caster in the dragon's hoard or vault of Asmodeus where it's located, leading to all kinds of adventure hooks (or, for sadistic DMs, a gruesome end.)
Anyway I second Adamantine Dragon, go out and watch/play it, read the material (it's all free online, you don't have to spend a dime more than you already have until you want to), and form your own conclusions.