Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?


4th Edition

251 to 300 of 1,528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Charlie D. wrote:
My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

I hope so too. If 5E bombs I have a feeling nobody will ever try bounded accuracy again; sadly.


bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

Inherent Bonuses.....

Done.

Sadly, we didn't see this rule until proverbial ship had sailed and everyone pretty much made up their mind on the edition.

Also, I see some suggestions of removing the 1/2 level progression altogether and decreasing Monster HP by about 1/3 to make the game play a bit faster AND keep the math to a relatively normal degree.


Pan wrote:


bugleyman wrote:


Charlie D. wrote:


My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

I hope so too. If 5E bombs I have a feeling nobody will ever try bounded accuracy again; sadly.

I can't see it bombing. The playtest was popular, they seem to be making a lot of the right moves this time and the game played well (imo). It may not dominate the market the way D&D used to but it will be one of the top 2 imo (the other being PF). Anyway, we'll see...


R_Chance wrote:
Pan wrote:


I hope so too. If 5E bombs I have a feeling nobody will ever try bounded accuracy again; sadly.
I can't see it bombing. The playtest was popular, they seem to be making a lot of the right moves this time and the game played well (imo). It may not dominate the market the way D&D used to but it will be one of the top 2 imo (the other being PF). Anyway, we'll see...

Unfortunately, it appears WotC's corporate whip-wielding overseers at Hasbro may have a different definition of "bombing" to the rest of the universe, in which anything that doesn't have enough zeroes at the end constitutes "bombing".

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes.

Seriously though, I'll look over the free rules, and may try running a simple game here at home. If it's good I'll look into it more

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

I am running a D&D Next campaign right now. If D&D 5E doesn't stray too much from the final playtest there will be no Christmas tree effect. I have not handed out any weapons with plusses yet, no ability score boosters, no save boosters, just cool magic items. The characters are 9th level and no problems yet (I let the martials pick one special metal type to be able to overcome as a class ability and most creatures immune all but magic weapons I just made resistant).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Pan wrote:


I hope so too. If 5E bombs I have a feeling nobody will ever try bounded accuracy again; sadly.
I can't see it bombing. The playtest was popular, they seem to be making a lot of the right moves this time and the game played well (imo). It may not dominate the market the way D&D used to but it will be one of the top 2 imo (the other being PF). Anyway, we'll see...
Unfortunately, it appears WotC's corporate whip-wielding overseers at Hasbro may have a different definition of "bombing" to the rest of the universe, in which anything that doesn't have enough zeroes at the end constitutes "bombing".

I think Mike Mearls has this challenge handled. To Hasbro, D&D is a brand not an RPG. So all the PDF sales, continuing Insider subs, video games, novels, mini games, board games, dice games, heck even the licensed toys all should count as D&D sales to Hasbro. So the RPG doesn't have to shoulder the whole load now. Mike may be running around like crazy juggling all the brand sales, but the effect is that he and his team may be able to protect and keep the RPG alive and free from too much corporate manipulation. Kudos to Mike.

Basically, if the D&D brand makes enough money I think the RPG will be left in the hands of the designers.


A year ago, I would have said no. But, from what I've seen so far, and against all odds, 5e looks like it will hit the sweet spot for me. So it's now a definite yes.

I will still spend money on PF materials such as pawns, and I might even continue using Golarion as our setting, but I can't see myself buying any more PF rules supplements.


Diffan wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

Inherent Bonuses.....

Done.

Sadly, we didn't see this rule until proverbial ship had sailed and everyone pretty much made up their mind on the edition.

Also, I see some suggestions of removing the 1/2 level progression altogether and decreasing Monster HP by about 1/3 to make the game play a bit faster AND keep the math to a relatively normal degree.

4e suggests using inherent bonuses for NPCs, to allow them to keep up with PCs while not giving too much treasure once defeated.

They could have done it for PCs as well almost as easily, but they didn't.


137ben wrote:
Diffan wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
My struggle with Pathfinder is the Christmas tree effect.

Sadly, 4E suffered from the Christmas Tree effect as well (which sucks, because it would have been SO EASY to correct -- adjust the monster math, keep the powers granted by the item, done).

Hopefully 5E finally fixes the problem...

Inherent Bonuses.....

Done.

Sadly, we didn't see this rule until proverbial ship had sailed and everyone pretty much made up their mind on the edition.

Also, I see some suggestions of removing the 1/2 level progression altogether and decreasing Monster HP by about 1/3 to make the game play a bit faster AND keep the math to a relatively normal degree.

4e suggests using inherent bonuses for NPCs, to allow them to keep up with PCs while not giving too much treasure once defeated.

They could have done it for PCs as well almost as easily, but they didn't.

Sure they have. When I pull up the Character Builder, the last tab about Campaign specifics, Inherent Bonues is a box I can select. If I do, then the enchantment bonuses for magical items (or rather, the automatic "+" that's assumed to be apart of the system) factor in automatically. Thus you won't need a +2 yadda-yadda. It could just be a yadda-yadda.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Already way too invested in Pathfinder to switch. The APs are too stronk and Pathfinder Society will always be where my loyalty lies. To me it is a way better format for playing games, with friends or new people.

The playtest for D&D Next was good but still a far cry from where Dungeons and Dragons needs to be. Will say its way better than 4th, IMO. It was good in its simplicity, but maybe a little too watered down for my taste.

Pathfinder all the way.


Diffan wrote:
Sure they have. When I pull up the Character Builder, the last tab about Campaign specifics, Inherent Bonues is a box I can select. If I do, then the enchantment bonuses for magical items (or rather, the automatic "+" that's assumed to be apart of the system) factor in automatically. Thus you won't need a +2 yadda-yadda. It could just be a yadda-yadda.

Well yes, but that's an option. I wish that +2 yadda-yadda had been designed out in the first place.


Also, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given where we are, but what is with all the people who prefer Pathfinder to a game they haven't seen yet? Isn't that like saying I liked Avengers better than I'll like Avengers 2?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Also, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given where we are, but what is with all the people who prefer Pathfinder to a game they haven't seen yet? Isn't that like saying I liked Avengers better than I'll like Avengers 2?

Well there was the playtest. If you got to see say half of Avengers 2 you might be in position to say you like Avengers 1 better. Also, people have built huge libraries of 3E/PF and the question is "will you be switching or not?" I think saying im content with PF or what ive seen of 5E isnt compelling is valid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Also, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given where we are, but what is with all the people who prefer Pathfinder to a game they haven't seen yet? Isn't that like saying I liked Avengers better than I'll like Avengers 2?

I'd say it's more like saying "I'm happier continuing to watch the Avengers franchise than picking up some new franchise launching next month, especially if I can only afford to keep watching either one or the other." - or even more accurately "I'm happier sticking with my X-Box than switching to a Playstation, even though a really great game I want just launched as a PS Exclusive, due to the fact I'd have to spend all that money buying a new system and all the peripherals."

Sometimes how good the system is only answers part of the user requirement. The cost of switching over may be a large factor, too, as is the comfort factor of staying with what you know and what is working for you.

For me personally, it's a matter of "show me why, given all of this material taking up half a bookcase, I'd want to stop buying it and instead spend the money to start over with something else, which will likely take at least a year of purchases and more likely two or three in order to get me back to the same position I'm in right now?"

Saying "I'm done collecting Pathfinder" would be a huge deal for me, and right now I can't imagine anything coming along that's an attractive enough prospect to make that an option - and I would have to stop, in order to have the money to buy into a replacement system in an ongoing (monthly?) way.

That's why I'll be grabbing the 5e core, trying it out, but knowing right now that it will not be replacing Pathfinder as my main game (at least, not as long as there's still Pathfinder material being produced.)

Even though, from what I've seen so far, 5e looks like it could possibly satisfy my game system preferences a bit better.

I have my X-Box (Pathfinder), a ton of peripherals (supplemental rules), a whole host of games (modules and APs), and most importantly it's good enough to do the job I need it to do - now, try and sell me on the advantages of buying a Playstation just to get, say, a higher res, when I can spend the money on new XBox games instead? :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well there are an awful lot of games out there I haven't played. Some I'm curious about. Some I know just by the discription I'm not interested in at all. In some cases they have design goals that counter what I know I like.

And as Pan says, if you like PF, there's a high hurdle to abandon it for something else, even if it might be a little better. And there's brand loyalty. And some rage at WotC.)

Plus quite a few people saying they're going to at least try it out.


And there's venue. I suspect the 5E adopters are in larger numbers at say... EN World than here. Even the people who breeze by the sub forums about 4E and beyond are, for the most part, Paizo / PF customers. I am. I just plan on buying both :)

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Also, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given where we are, but what is with all the people who prefer Pathfinder to a game they haven't seen yet? Isn't that like saying I liked Avengers better than I'll like Avengers 2?

I already like the Basic game stuff I've seen better than any 3x/4e/Pathfinder game. I guess it's like saying I like the Avengers 2 trailer better than the Avengers, using your example. Some people like having a zillion modifiers to add up and the RNG becoming meaningless after a certain point. Whatever floats their boat. I like 1e. The new game looks a lot more like that than 3x, so I'm happy for now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Also, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given where we are, but what is with all the people who prefer Pathfinder to a game they haven't seen yet? Isn't that like saying I liked Avengers better than I'll like Avengers 2?

Isnt the reverse also valid though? People who are here on a Paizo message board saying that they are ready to jettison Pathfinder on a game who's final version hasn't been released yet?

I saw all of these same conversations on ENworld back in 2007 - 2008 in regard or the 4E switch. People were saying that 3E was too complex, that only munchkins wanted to play it in order to power game and that they'd all eventually come over to 4E because it was D&D and effectively the ONLY real game in town.

And yet? Here we are...


I might play it more if they have provided a lot more options for 1st level Druid Spells, and reign in Thunderwave somewhat. It was my Druid's go to ability and made way too much noise. I tried to get the DM to disallow it indoors...

I was also confused by this:

DnD Next Final Playtest wrote:


Casting a Prepared Spell.
When you cast one of your prepared spells, you expend a casting of the spell’s level or higher. The spell itself is not expended.
For example, if you have the 1st-level spell cure wounds prepared and can still cast a 1st-level spell and a 2nd-level spell, you can cast cure wounds once or twice and at either level.

It was a little hard to get my head around. I get it now, but it is written not so clearly, though perhaps more a function of spontaneous/prepared considerations/assumptions of 3.0/3.5/PF.


Actually, thinking about it more, I might try Next out on my nieces/nephew and see how they like the pugwampi* mechanic... I know it rubbed me up the wrong way...

*(disadvantage/advantage)


Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... I have seen too many beloved campaign settings and print publications destroyed to make way for new hyperspace- roleplaying- bypasses to participate in "new editions for new editions sake" shenanigans. Remember the "fun police" , and the whole "everybody can get together and play on-line now if only you all buy this subscription to nothing"?? Pathfinder for me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
If I liked a Pathfinder module (yeah, I still use module...) I

So do we. We just distinguish between modules which are the traditional length softcover productions you're used to, and Scenarios which are shorter pieces designed to be finished in a four hour slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Isnt the reverse also valid though? People who are here on a Paizo message board saying that they are ready to jettison Pathfinder on a game who's final version hasn't been released yet?

It certainly is.

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I saw all of these same conversations on ENworld back in 2007 - 2008 in regard or the 4E switch. People were saying that 3E was too complex, that only munchkins wanted to play it in order to power game and that they'd all eventually come over to 4E because it was D&D and effectively the ONLY real game in town.

And yet? Here we are...

Hell, I was saying those things here in 2007-2008. And I firmly believe that it was 100% WotC's game to lose...and boy did they.


Darkrist wrote:
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... I have seen too many beloved campaign settings and print publications destroyed to make way for new hyperspace- roleplaying- bypasses to participate in "new editions for new editions sake" shenanigans. Remember the "fun police" , and the whole "everybody can get together and play on-line now if only you all buy this subscription to nothing"?? Pathfinder for me.

This is what I mean. You're essentially saying that the contents of the game don't matter at all -- you're not switching. Which is certainly your prerogative, it just doesn't seem particularly logical.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Darkrist wrote:
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... I have seen too many beloved campaign settings and print publications destroyed to make way for new hyperspace- roleplaying- bypasses to participate in "new editions for new editions sake" shenanigans. Remember the "fun police" , and the whole "everybody can get together and play on-line now if only you all buy this subscription to nothing"?? Pathfinder for me.
This is what I mean. You're essentially saying that the contents of the game don't matter at all -- you're not switching. Which is certainly your prerogative, it just doesn't seem particularly logical.

Actually that makes sense to me... Pathfinder, 2E, Next.... they're just rule systems. We don't play Pathfinder because it's the best game around... We've played a dozen different systems. They all have their plusses and minuses.

We play pathfinder because we enjoy Golarion. We like the Pre-written APs, and we like the current support model for the system.

Frankly we skipped 3.0 and 3.5! We were engrossed in our own 2E system that we had spent a LOT of money collecting... and didnt' need the new system at all...

Then They broke the Forgotten Realms and our DM was having trouble writing full campaigns anymore with Job and RL... sooooo we switched over to Pathfinder and the APs....

Now we're in the same boat as before. We have spent a LOT of money on Pathfinder... and the idea of switching over to a new system (REGARDLESS of its functional merit) isn't of any interest to us. There really aren't any major flaws with Pathfinder that would chase us away... so we're here for at least the time being.

Any new system that wants me to buy YET ANOTHER Player handbook/DMG/Bestiary/Realm setting etc etc. has a MASSIVE uphill climb...


phantom1592 wrote:

Actually that makes sense to me... Pathfinder, 2E, Next.... they're just rule systems. We don't play Pathfinder because it's the best game around... We've played a dozen different systems. They all have their plusses and minuses.

We play pathfinder because we enjoy Golarion. We like the Pre-written APs, and we like the current support model for the system.

Frankly we skipped 3.0 and 3.5! We were engrossed in our own 2E system that we had spent a LOT of money collecting... and didnt' need the new system at all...

Then They broke the Forgotten Realms and our DM was having trouble writing full campaigns anymore with Job and RL... sooooo we switched over to Pathfinder and the APs....

Now we're in the same boat as before. We have spent a LOT of money on Pathfinder... and the idea of switching over to a new system (REGARDLESS of its functional merit) isn't of any interest to us. There really aren't any major flaws with Pathfinder that would chase us away... so we're here for at least the time being.

Any new system that wants me to buy YET ANOTHER Player handbook/DMG/Bestiary/Realm setting etc etc. has a MASSIVE uphill climb...

Ah...so the network effect. That makes sense. Personally, I purchase and play many different RPGs -- for example, we're finally starting our 13th Age game next week -- but I get that not everyone does. New editions don't bother me either, but I know that is somewhat unusual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still going to continue to play Pathfinder, but there is a pretty good chance my money (and some of my time) is going to 5e for the rest of the year.

I've wanted to find a system to introduce my kids to the hobby. Pathfinder is just too rules heavy to properly keep an eight year-old and his friends engaged even to get through character creation (I found this true for some new players over eight, as well!). I've looked at 13th Age and Savage World, but D&D still has some name recognition at that age and should be a good platform to lead into other rpgs.

I also haven't been impressed with Paizo's response to the 5e release. Iron Gods AP, Advanced Classes and a super-dungeon (coupled with an "we're not worried, there's plenty of players for everyone" attitude) hasn't sold me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

...pugwampi*...

*(disadvantage/advantage)

Dare I ask how that term came about?


Grayn wrote:


I've wanted to find a system to introduce my kids to the hobby. Pathfinder is just too rules heavy to properly keep an eight year-old and his friends engaged even to get through character creation (I found this true for some new players over eight, as well!). I've looked at 13th Age and Savage World, but D&D still has some name recognition at that age and should be a good platform to lead into other rpgs.

I'm using Swords & Wizardry for that. My kids liked the Pathfinder beginner box and we played through that, but character creation in Pathfinder was not as much fun for my kids.

We made characters very quickly in S&W, and since I grew up playing AD&D 1E, the transition is very easy for me.

Grayn wrote:


I also haven't been impressed with Paizo's response to the 5e release. Iron Gods AP, Advanced Classes and a super-dungeon (coupled with an "we're not worried, there's plenty of players for everyone" attitude) hasn't sold me.

I like the advances classes response. The "superdungeon" idea is interesting, but I would still like to see Paizo do a megadungeon (like Rappan Athuk, Castle Greyhawk, etc.).

Paizo has had a lot of very good products, IMO, but they have yet to do that "crown jewel" if you will. I also still want Epic Level Rules because the game is still not truly compatible with 3.x until they do (again, IMO).

All that said, the stuff made by Frog God Games keeps me firmly interested in Pathfinder.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

...pugwampi*...

*(disadvantage/advantage)

Dare I ask how that term came about?

One of the gremlin types in Pathfinder. Gremlin, Pugwampi


If I were to take the step into 5th edition D&D, I will give it 2-3 years, which would be long enough for me to hear things about it from other gamers, as well as give Wizards of the Coast enough time to release the inevitable Revised edition of 5th.

But if the playtest is any indication, I highly doubt that I will make the switch or even add it to what I play.

Dark Archive

magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.

To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Beardsley wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.
To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.

No, the comparison really isn't equal. You could use most of the 1E and 2E fluff with all the changes from 1E - 3.x. You could use almost none of it in 4E.


DaveMage wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.
To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.
No, the comparison really isn't equal. You could use most of the 1E and 2E fluff with all the changes from 1E - 3.x. You could use almost none of it in 4E.

I had zero problems running or playing in 4e Forgotten Realms games using pre-4e campaign materials. I think you probably could have done the same.


Scott Betts wrote:


DaveMage wrote:


Jason Beardsley wrote:


magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.

To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.

No, the comparison really isn't equal. You could use most of the 1E and 2E fluff with all the changes from 1E - 3.x. You could use almost none of it in 4E.

I had zero problems running or playing in 4e Forgotten Realms games using pre-4e campaign materials. I think you probably could have done the same.

Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. Iirc there attitude was "don't try". It's why I didn't think about trying to convert my campaign to 4E. Mind you, after reading the core 4E books I wasn't really hot on trying. It looked OK btw, just wasn't my game (I gave my books to a student if you're wondering). Anyway, I guess if you stripped out all the crunch and reinterpreted a lot of the fluff you could do it. Otoh, I don't have any doubt that my 3.x game could convert to 5E if I decide to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Switching? Highly doubtful. I've got a lot invested in Pathfinder and it's serving my real life gaming group just fine. I actually rather like where the system is at, and adding choices (like the upcoming ACG) really appeals to me.

However, having said that, I'll be buying the three main books and downloading Basic Dnd for sure. If I like their adventures I'll be buying those, too. I liked the last playtest document, I like where they're taking the game. So, unless WoTC makes some sort of colossal error, I'm happy to support this new edition.


I will expand a bit on my response.

NOTE: This is all IMO!

Having seen the current (?) playtest doc, my reaction was - if you asked me for a list of all the reasons we stopped playing D&D with AD&D and went to things like GURPS/Hero System and made them into a game, you'd have what I'm seeing in this version.

To me, it seems like they've taken everything I liked about 3.x and tossed them in favor of a 'simpler' system. 5E/Next may actually be easier to play/learn, better for streamlining combats, and all the other good things that have been talked about here. I hope, for all of those who find it interesting, who are planning on switching, that it is what you want.

For me: uh...where are the options, the variations that make PF so complex, that are what I find fun?

I spent 26 years in the army, in lockstep, in the no option lifestyle. Now, I WANT all those options and so far, in 5E/Next, I'm not seeing them.

We probably will get the basic stuff and try it...I just don't see it going anywhere, for me, at least.

I mean, while 4E wasn't my cup of tea, I still saw bits, ideas I liked or found interesting in it. So far, 5E/Next leaves me cold. Not interesting. Dull. Basic. When the 'How to Play' chapter bores, I'm not likely to enjoy the rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


DaveMage wrote:


Jason Beardsley wrote:


magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.

To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.

No, the comparison really isn't equal. You could use most of the 1E and 2E fluff with all the changes from 1E - 3.x. You could use almost none of it in 4E.

I had zero problems running or playing in 4e Forgotten Realms games using pre-4e campaign materials. I think you probably could have done the same.

Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. Iirc there attitude was "don't try". It's why I didn't think about trying to convert my campaign to 4E. Mind you, after reading the core 4E books I wasn't really hot on trying. It looked OK btw, just wasn't my game (I gave my books to a student if you're wondering). Anyway, I guess if you stripped out all the crunch and reinterpreted a lot of the fluff you could do it. Otoh, I don't have any doubt that my 3.x game could convert to 5E if I decide to do it.

I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.


Diffan wrote:


I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Just that it took more work than other edition changes and that WotC pretty much discouraged the attempt. In the end, if you're determined you can convert from / to most systems. But yeah, the effort wasn't worth it for a game that I didn't find all that compelling.


R_Chance wrote:
Diffan wrote:


I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Just that it took more work than other edition changes and that WotC pretty much discouraged the attempt. In the end, if you're determined you can convert from / to most systems. But yeah, the effort wasn't worth it for a game that I didn't find all that compelling.

I created a thread a LONG time ago on the d Gleemax forums for.WotC but they got deleted. Luckily the one from Candlekeep was still going. Here it is for those interested http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12827

It's balance is all wonky, so if your looking at this and saying "whoa, waaaay overpowered!" Your probably right.


Spiral_Ninja wrote:

I will expand a bit on my response.

NOTE: This is all IMO!

Having seen the current (?) playtest doc, my reaction was - if you asked me for a list of all the reasons we stopped playing D&D with AD&D and went to things like GURPS/Hero System and made them into a game, you'd have what I'm seeing in this version.

To me, it seems like they've taken everything I liked about 3.x and tossed them in favor of a 'simpler' system. 5E/Next may actually be easier to play/learn, better for streamlining combats, and all the other good things that have been talked about here. I hope, for all of those who find it interesting, who are planning on switching, that it is what you want.

For me: uh...where are the options, the variations that make PF so complex, that are what I find fun?

I spent 26 years in the army, in lockstep, in the no option lifestyle. Now, I WANT all those options and so far, in 5E/Next, I'm not seeing them.

We probably will get the basic stuff and try it...I just don't see it going anywhere, for me, at least.

I mean, while 4E wasn't my cup of tea, I still saw bits, ideas I liked or found interesting in it. So far, 5E/Next leaves me cold. Not interesting. Dull. Basic. When the 'How to Play' chapter bores, I'm not likely to enjoy the rest.

The "options" are supposed to be contained in the PHB and DMG. Whether those will be enough to satisfy you still remains to be seen but you really haven't seen the "full" game yet. I don't anticipate your experience with the Basic game will be satisfying based on what you have written. You will probably need to play the game with all three of the core books to get what you are looking for.

Personally, I prefer simplicity in my games (4E and Pathfinder are NOT my type of game) so I am eager to see if the Basic D&D game will have the support WoTC have been touting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:


The "options" are supposed to be contained in the PHB and DMG. Whether those will be enough to satisfy you still remains to be seen but you really haven't seen the "full" game yet. I don't anticipate your experience with the Basic game will be satisfying based on what you have written. You will probably need to play the game with all three of the core books to get what you are looking for.

Personally, I prefer simplicity in my games (4E and Pathfinder are NOT my type of game) so I am eager to see if the Basic D&D game will have the support WoTC have been touting.

We will probably get the books when they come out...we're obsessive that way. (We're gamers, after all.)

I still think I'll prefer Pathfinder, though. If I were going for a more simplified version, I'd probably go for True20.

And, who knows...I may be back later eating my words.

I doubt there will ever be a 'one, true game system' that satisfies everyone. I don't object to someone preferring a system that I don't. I wish everyone the best system for them.

Right now, for me, it's Pathfinder.


I'll probably try out D&D when the new version releases. I remain skeptical about whether or not they can pull off their original goal: replicating/including multiple editions of play. My skepticism points mostly towards too many hands in too many cookie jars. If they pull it off, however, I'd probably be willing to convert wholesale.

Pathfinder is great, but system fatigue begins weighing me down after a certain point. The wheels still seem to fall off at or just after 12th level, things are too overly codified for my tastes, I feel like there's too much emphasis on min/maxing to "play it the right way", etc.

Only managed to get about three sessions of 4E under my belt before I threw in the towel there (and despite what that sounds like, I did go into the game with a mind at least as open as when I had tried 3.0). In its defense, there may have been more redeeming qualities to the system than I witnessed. For me, I couldn't forgive the tendency to express everything in combat terms. I could see then how the combat approach might have appealed to some, but it played out rather bland for my tastes.

Where I'm at right now? Currently and finally getting some distance between myself and Pathfinder at the table. Wrapping up a game of Hellfrost in Savage Worlds, and getting ready to start up a game of Myth & Magic (which more or less replicates AD&D 2E play). That's the horse I have in the race, generally speaking: 2nd edition. It is precisely what sparked hope from me when D&D:Next was announced. While I have serious doubts that it's going to live up to what I was hoping to get out of it, I will give it a shot and hope my doubts are unfounded.

Silver Crusade

Kagehiro wrote:
Pathfinder is great, but system fatigue begins weighing me down after a certain point. The wheels still seem to fall off at or just after 12th level, things are too overly codified for my tastes, I feel like there's too much emphasis on min/maxing to "play it the right way", etc.

This is why I'll be giving D&D another chance. I hoping, having taken a lesson from Paizo, that they'll listen to their gamers, and I'm intrigued by the fixes, which I hope to explore more of at GenCon. Rules bloat, the Christmas tree effect, and the insane amount of modifiers deter me in PF, and now that we're at high-level play, there isn't a session that goes by where someone gets lost in the numbers or an obscure rule gets quoted. It's taking away from a greater focus on Role-Play.

It appears the two systems won't be so incompatible that I can't continue to use the APs, which is where I feel PF shines.


I've played D&D Next playtest, but I'll play anything that is D&D. I'm not a fan of Next, but I will play Next, because if there is a table-top RPG game, I'll play it. A PBP Next does not sound exiting though and doing one on PBP was boring. If a AP is being run though, I will sign up, as long as it is 3.5 or beyond, as 2nd addition and below is too complex for me.

I stick with D&D 3.5, Pathfinder and 4th addition if I can at all possible.


I'm looking forward to Next and I'll buy the books. I don't think my current group will make the switch though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:

I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.

The problem were not the mechanics (although since I hated 4E, they were a part of it for me personally), but that they gutted the storyline of the Realms. Yeah, the Time of Troubles changed things up a bit, but it didn't jump the timeline 100 years into the future, thereby killing off all the human characters one cared about. While ToT made some changes to the Pantheon, it didn't drastically cut down on the number of deities, conflating many into mere aspects of a greater deity.

I guess the one thing that most pissed me most off was the character assassination of Tymora, being wedded off to Tyr like some voiceless, choiceless chattel by Sûne. What the effing hell?

I don't know what it is with publishers and doing large time jumps, thereby killing off the cast of characters the fans actually cared about. BattleTech did the same thing and it basically destroyed the setting.

251 to 300 of 1,528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.