I'm tooling up to start my next campaign soon, and debating switching over to PF from 3.5. I'm well versed in 3.5, and building up a decent knowledge of PF. This would be a home brew game with primarily core and a few house rules whichever way I go, players have a basic knowledge of both and will happily play either.
So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've already said it was enjoyable. As to the primary reason I switched:
Grapple rules. Also, bards got buffed, so that's nice too.
The setting is also a good selling point; the random mix of it allows you to run just about any campaign you want to. Want a campaign of barbarians? There's a nation for that. Want primitives fighting against advanced technology? There's a nation for that. Want to travel between worlds? There's an entire book for that. Want all of the horror of Transylvania? There's a nation for that. Want more DnD-style nations? There's a few for that.
In addition, the mechanics have been more fixed, compared to those of 3.5, and feature many of 3.5's good points while dealing with some of the problems.
So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.
I suppose the main selling point is that the core classes have slightly more to them and may or may not be more balanced, there are a lot of ups and downs and your own house rules might make life easier or worse. Can I ask what pointed you to pathfinder instead of say, more 3.5, savage worlds, or Legend by rule of cool? Are you interested in E6 maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the attempt to make a single class (w/archetypes) valuable.
I always hated the insane class dipping of 3.5.
I like the attempt to make a single class (w/archetypes) valuable.
I always hated the insane class dipping of 3.5.
There is a flipside though, pathfinder is big on anti-dipping and 3.5 had archetypes of its own(variants, which usually swapped out less, and tbh they didn't have much to give anyway in a lot of cases). I always liked having the option of dipping or not without feeling less for it. 3.5 wasn't too insanely about dipping, and I think some of the later classes were actually much friendlier about not requiring a dip, though some classes suffered for being rather weak on their own and wanting of one. [/DevilsAdvocate]
It's very popular, and you can get all the crunch easy at the d20pfsrd. It's kinda the McD of RPGs.
McD of RPGs? I think it has a little more class than that :p.
Point is, it's probably not the best out there
I keep hearing people say this. I'm fine with people having opinions, but I'm getting curious as to what people do think is the best. White Wolf Productions games, as I recall, almost universally suffer from poor balance since freelancers value fluff more than crunch when writing new options. I'm basing this on my experience with early Exalted, so I'm probably biased, though.
WotC... no. Just no. If Paizo is McD, WotC is Denny's.
Amber Diceless? While I admit I'm very fond of Amber, it requires people to know of a specific setting to work. And in my experience, it's even more prone to jerks insisting things should go their way because their character is cool, they're a lord of Chaos, whatever.
So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.I suppose the main selling point is that the core classes have slightly more to them and may or may not be more balanced, there are a lot of ups and downs and your own house rules might make life easier or worse. Can I ask what pointed you to pathfinder instead of say, more 3.5, savage worlds, or Legend by rule of cool? Are you interested in E6 maybe?
Well, the group I'll be running with is somewhat resistant to new systems, PF or 3.5 are about all I'm sure I can get them to go for, and a couple of the players are a bit young for WoD (my other stand by). So I am weighing these two options. I also run a fair bit of GURPS, but don't think all of this crew would go for it.
The big thing going for PF is that it's a lot more balanced.
Actually, a lot of the old problems are still here and some are just worse. Some of the more balanced splat from 3.5 is gone and has no intention of being redone, which is a sad moment. There's also a lack of options, as while 3.5 created new systems with psionics, incarnum, binding, etc, pathfinder would like you to know vancian and full attack martials are the one true way and you won't be seeing anything new. How different the two games might seem is going to vary greatly depending on what materials you allowed and how you look at things.
Good news is wild shape and divine power were toned down, bad news is CMD may work very much against you, combat maneuvers were split in two, rogue may have fallen behind in the rat race, and martial-caster disparity is still around and the tiers may not have changed much, and the power creep is still here, just a little slow.
The big thing going for PF is that it's a lot more balanced.Actually, a lot of the old problems are still here and some are just worse.
I think this depends a lot on the optimization level people use. In a highly optimized game with people from the CharOp boards I agree with you that PF isn't really that much better than 3.5, but for casual player I think PF is miles better than 3.5.
It's much _easier_ to make a decent character of any class in PF than in 3.5. You can take a core rulebook only fighter through an adventure path without much issues; it'd be very hard to do something similar with the 3.5 fighter. Not to talk about a paladin or ranger which got huge buffs even in core rulebook only.
When you go into hyperspecialized and hyperoptimized characters things change, and at high levels without an agreement not to abuse things like planar binding things also change, but in my experience, it is a minority of groups that play like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big change from 3.5 was the APG. Its really what made pathfinder not just 3.5 with a few house rules but an actual revolution. It introduced archtypes with swap out and change base class abilities for more specilized thematic ones that are built around a theme.
I would say if you are planning on running a lot of (relatively current) PF published adventure material (adventure paths, modules, pf scenarios, etc), you should just use PF. If you plan to use older 3.5 materials, use 3.5. While you can convert between them, there is so many fiddly differences that in the long run it is just not worth it. If you are going to be running 100% of your own material and if you like 3.5 better (like I do), just stick with that. Just realize that new players are going to be wanting PF more and more.
The Bestiaries are beautiful (might not help persuade your players, though)
Point is, it's probably not the best out thereI keep hearing people say this. I'm fine with people having opinions, but I'm getting curious as to what people do think is the best. White Wolf Productions games, as I recall, almost universally suffer from poor balance since freelancers value fluff more than crunch when writing new options. I'm basing this on my experience with early Exalted, so I'm probably biased, though.
First of all there is no White Wolf any more*.
Yes White Wolf's "balance" is pretty much non-existant and in most of their games they don't know how to make a system, they know how to make great settings but they do crappy systems.While yes they do often write new options in the way most rogue talents are written (something that sounds cool but ends up doing nothing or almost nothing) that isn't the bigger problem with White Wolf/Onyx Path, the biggest problem is that they don't act like proffesionals.
*Well the company still exists but they don't publish books. Now all CCP (the company that has bought White Wolf) do is to license Onyx Path (most of the guys that were White Wolf) to publish books. Yes the people who created the games of White Wolf need to pay in order to get the right to publish books for their games.
@OP
Another reason to switch to PF from 3.5 is that PF is a game that still publishes new material while 3.5 is a dead (from a publication POV) game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can have a nice game, where everybody has fun, using just the Core rulebook.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
On White Wolf's various games (and I say this as a long-time White Wolf player):
Comparing the Storyteller System games' balance to something like Pathfinder is a mistake. White Wolf's games, by nature and design, are a lot less focused on combat balance than Pathfinder is, and frankly most 'game balance' that people actually talk about isn't for the game as a whole, but in-combat capabilities specifically. So...no by that metric they aren't balanced.
They're designed as games where you really can play a character, or group of characters, who are completely worthless in combat and still be effective characters within the storyline of the game (and indeed, despite enjoying combat oriented characters myself, in all my many years playing White Wolf games, by far the scariest and most effective characters I saw rarely engaged in combat and had almost no skill in it in several cases). Heck, combat is integrated into the skills system using the same basic mechanic, as opposed to being a separate stat everyone has (BAB)...that tells you something about the game's difference in focus and design goals right there.
Calling the Storyteller System unbalanced is a lot like calling, oh, the aforementioned Amber Diceless unbalanced (albeit to a lesser degree). It's technically a true statement, but rather misses the point, and is like judging a saw by how well it functions as a hammer.
Exalted specifically...was a lot more combat oriented and tried to do that on the very not combat-oriented chassis, which was likely a bad decision on several levels, and did indeed result in serious balance issues, which 2E didn't notably help with as a whole (the 2E corebook was actually pretty good...but things rapidly got very problematic from there). I actually love Exalted, and ran a very successful game of 1E Exalted that is still one of my more fun gaming memories for something like a year...but balanced it was not. But, as mentioned, that's a problem with trying to adapt their existing system for a genre it was never really made for (like trying to design a political intrigue game without much in the way of violence using Pathfinder), not a problem with Storyteller System games in general.
|
But, as mentioned, that's a problem with trying to adapt their existing system for a genre it was never really made for (like trying to design a political intrigue game without much in the way of violence using Pathfinder), not a problem with Storyteller System games in general.
I'd have to disagree with you here. I think Pathfinder can lend itself really well to non-combat and political intrigue games. Infact I've seen it done. With all the different social and investigation based archetypes, prestige classes and some of the core classes, I think PF can be a basis for non-combat games. The issue isn't the rules, it's the mindset. Alot of GMs and players associate PF with D&D (for understandable reasons) and think the best reaction is kick down door, stab the bad guy. If you get away from that, you get a system that has some great rules (that aren't overly complex) for political intrigue (especially using optional rules like Fame, Honor and Downtimes), indepth investigation and obviously, when the need arises, combat.
In my experience the multiple locations of Golarion, each with their own flavour, combined with the variety of material to make a character you want in line with the play style you desire, make PF a much more flexible system than White Wolfs product line.
I'm tooling up to start my next campaign soon, and debating switching over to PF from 3.5. I'm well versed in 3.5, and building up a decent knowledge of PF. This would be a home brew game with primarily core and a few house rules whichever way I go, players have a basic knowledge of both and will happily play either.
So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.
Most characters gain some pretty cool powers.
Lots of open content: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have to disagree with you here. I think Pathfinder can lend itself really well to non-combat and political intrigue games. Infact I've seen it done. With all the different social and investigation based archetypes, prestige classes and some of the core classes, I think PF can be a basis for non-combat games. The issue isn't the rules, it's the mindset. Alot of GMs and players associate PF with D&D (for understandable reasons) and think the best reaction is kick down door, stab the bad guy. If you get away from that, you get a system that has some great rules (that aren't overly complex) for political intrigue (especially using optional rules like Fame, Honor and Downtimes), indepth investigation and obviously, when the need arises, combat.
A good GM can run a good game of any sort in any system. But Pathfinder is really poorly suited to anything without a fair amount of combat. It doesn't have to be a 'four fights every session' thing, but the game is built and predicated on combat, and even on a specific number of combats per day, and trying to run a game with little or no combat, or even just messing with the base ratio screws game balance all to hell and back (see every thread about 'nova-ing' and how plot-breaking many spells are for why this is so).
A good GM can certainly compensate for that, and probably run an awesome game...but I've done that with Exalted, too. It doesn't mean there aren't better systems out there for doing that particular style of game, nor that some of the problems likely to come up in that sort of game are due to the game system being used in a way that was never intended.
In my experience the multiple locations of Golarion, each with their own flavour, combined with the variety of material to make a character you want in line with the play style you desire, make PF a much more flexible system than White Wolfs product line.
I love Pathfinder, and Golarion, perhaps to an excessive degree, and it's certainly an expansive world...but not a lot more so than that of Exalted (just for example), and Exalted is only one of four separate worlds and universes (three highly detailed, including gaming in various historical periods) that White Wolf published over the years. So...no, this really isn't true.
Now, if you want to argue that Golarion is a better world that's a much more subjective issue and one I won't argue (since arguing subjective things gets silly real quick), but it's certainly not more expansive or permissive in the types of characters you can build than White Wolf's entire published list of products, which include everything from heroic members of the Inquisition to superheroes (with almost any power you can imagine), to pulp adventurers, to what amount to demigods, to biblical fallen angels, to vampires, to werehyenas, to Frankensteinian monsters on an alchemical pilgrimage to become human...all as expected PC choices in a particular game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Cause it's fun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly for me the main selling point is paizo. I firmly believe their primary goal is to make the best game they can. It wont be everyones favorite, from the newest free lancer, all the way to the CEO these people care about the game.
Homebrew games wont make primary use of the best pathfinder physical asset (the adventures they write) but you can still mine them for ideas and such. And the fact that the offer their rules freely on the web means its easy to bring your players on board with the system.
There is also the amazing 3rd Party Community that has grown up out of paizo's open atmosphere, which again is among my primary reasons for playing pathfinder. Though if you do go core only, then obviously that wont make much difference to you.
In terms of the rules themselves, the most important thing for me was the greater emphasis on making classes feel like they have a sense of progression. No more big empty class charts like there is in 3.5. Many of the abilities that were added to the existing classes arent gamebreaking, but they are flavorful and interesting. And they add depth to the base classes, which I like a good deal.
In terms of the rules themselves, the most important thing for me was the greater emphasis on making classes feel like they have a sense of progression. No more big empty class charts like there is in 3.5. Many of the abilities that were added to the existing classes arent gamebreaking, but they are flavorful and interesting. And they add depth to the base classes, which I like a good deal.
[DevilsAdvocate] On the other hand, some classes have more depth than others. Clerics and fighters feel wholely empty and rarely gain new things from class features. Though clerics enjoy their spells, their class feature is only channeling and domains beyond that, and their deity ties make them pretty inflexible. Fighters of course are stuck in a full attack paradigm, and some classes fill those empty levels with numbers pretending to get new skills. You get a +1 or not -1! woohoo? Fighter might get the worst of it, only receiving numbers and staying to his full attack or bust paradigm he's always suffered from, and he lost tactical feats and martial study. No warblade to step in and fill his role more productively either. [/DevilsAdvocate] Its an improvement over core 3.5 though, a really big one for even the fighter that they can see on a chart that they actually get something every level. Barbarian went from having almost no features to having access to rage powers, which are really amazing for filling the martial role.
I was introduced to D&D through Pathfinder and later played DDO which is based on 3.5 and I couldn't do it. DDO is fun and all but just suffering through 3.5 rules after playing PF is just too frustrating. A buddy of mine play 3.5 first and then played Pf with me and he can't go back to 3.5.
Pathfinder just cleans up too many things: the skill system, dead levels, spellcaster fragility, marital weakness (you can say that wizards are better than fighters and they are but a PF fighter vs. an equally-levelled 3.5 isn't even a competition), what sneak attack can apply to, overpowered prestige classes, and character customization without multiclassing.
On the topic of the world of Golarion, what really impressed me was the commitment to diversity without sacrificing a good setting and story. I love the fact that they are a roughly equal number of male and female iconics in various roles (frontline fighter female, stay-in-back support male, etc.) I love that the iconics are bisexual unless specifically stated otherwise. I love the push towards racial diversity with every race getting at least one respectable nation to call home. I love the incredible detail of all the countries in the Inner Sea and in Tian Xia. I never felt there was caricature, though I admit that a lot of the detail is hidden in books and not on the SRD or the wiki. (for example, CotCT- Edge of Anarchy has a wonderful primer on the Varisians that shows how they are no a bunch of gypsy stereotypes but you'd have to buy the book to get most of it.)
I don't think system matters very much, however I think paizo put out some terrific stuff and if you want to easily be able to use their as yet unwritten material, it will be easier to incorporate if you're already playing pathfinder.
I really, really liked the various subsystems in ultimate campaign (for example). Because I generally run a different system than pathfinder, it was a little more work to incorporate that stuff into my game. The same might be true if you (or one of your players) are particularly enthused by the upcoming new base classes.
a PF fighter vs. an equally-levelled 3.5 isn't even a competition
Yeah, the 3.5 fighter would open with a leap attack with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack and when the PF fighter tries to hit back he'll have to deal with Rombilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike, and if the fighter tries to attack first he might have to deal with a lockdown build with a 3.5 spiked chain! Bonus points if you get Sidestep to avoid getting a full attack yourself. Poor PF fighter...
edit: Oh, and of course 3.5 fighter can TWF with weapon spikes and a two handed weapon I guess.
a PF fighter vs. an equally-levelled 3.5 isn't even a competitionYeah, the 3.5 fighter would open with a leap attack with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack and when the PF fighter tries to hit back he'll have to deal with Rombilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike, and if the fighter tries to attack first he might have to deal with a lockdown build with a 3.5 spiked chain! Bonus points if you get Sidestep to avoid getting a full attack yourself. Poor PF fighter...
edit: Oh, and of course 3.5 fighter can TWF with weapon spikes and a two handed weapon I guess.
That assumes the 3.5 fighter will go first. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the selling points for me when I made the transition:
- A huge problem with 3.5 was the martial VS caster disparity. In Pathfinder, it still exists, but the divide is much smaller.
- All the classes in general got a nice upgrade too. There are pretty much no more "dead levels" where you don't get anything.
- Combat maneuvers (grappling, tripping, disarming, etc.) are now no more complicated than making regular attacks.
- A continual line of modules and full campaign adventure paths for those who want such support.
- Comfortable pacing on new releases. D&D 4E tried to drown their customers in new content. Paizo releases ~4 quality, play-tested books each year, which helps budget management and makes for a better overall game. (And you know who does much of the play testing prior to release? WE, THE ONLINE COMMUNITY DO.)
- Paizo has an active support system, regularly responding to people on these forums and releasing official FAQs and Errata for each hardcover.
- More freedom to play what you want while giving the GMs more freedom to balance their own games. One example would be the the restrictive ECL system in v3.5 that was intended to balance monstrous characters with non-monstrous characters, but it never really worked out that way in practice. Pathfinder gives a few loose guidelines for monstrous characters and basically tells the GM to "eyeball it."
- In v3.5, having magical items that were actually interesting was nigh impossible, because if you skipped out on the rings of protection and amulets of natural armor and other key items (known by many as "the big six"), then you likely died shortly thereafter as encounter challenges would outpace your lagging stats. In Pathfinder, you have more equipment slots, which allows you to get the best of both worlds (now you can have the big six AND some other interesting items too). Also, modified items (such as having belt of strength +6 that also has an interesting feature) is more broadly supported in Pathfinder.
That assumes the 3.5 fighter will go first. :Pa PF fighter vs. an equally-levelled 3.5 isn't even a competitionYeah, the 3.5 fighter would open with a leap attack with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack and when the PF fighter tries to hit back he'll have to deal with Rombilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike, and if the fighter tries to attack first he might have to deal with a lockdown build with a 3.5 spiked chain! Bonus points if you get Sidestep to avoid getting a full attack yourself. Poor PF fighter...
edit: Oh, and of course 3.5 fighter can TWF with weapon spikes and a two handed weapon I guess.
Yep! In the other example he trips you running in with combat reflexes. Or sidesteps, depending on the situation and how much schrodingering is allowed with feat selection. 3.5 fighter could also dip for pounce and could get martial maneuvers easier because they only took one feat after combat expertise. 3.5 fighter had a lot of things, and even had a number of archetypes. A lot of people forget 3.5 had variants that let you swap class features. Not that 3.5 fighter was that great, but he has things over PF fighter still. Hence the DevilsAdvocate. In a vacuum with feats PF fighter looks better, but with all that added material and some system mastery I think I like some of 3.5 fighter's choices.
a PF fighter vs. an equally-levelled 3.5 isn't even a competitionYeah, the 3.5 fighter would open with a leap attack with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack and when the PF fighter tries to hit back he'll have to deal with Rombilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike, and if the fighter tries to attack first he might have to deal with a lockdown build with a 3.5 spiked chain! Bonus points if you get Sidestep to avoid getting a full attack yourself. Poor PF fighter...
edit: Oh, and of course 3.5 fighter can TWF with weapon spikes and a two handed weapon I guess.
Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5, and many 3.5 options can be used with it relatively easily. The 3.5 fighter only has bonus feats pretty much, while the PF fighter gets weapon training, armor training, and some other extra features.
For the OP: there's an excellent information guide geared toward people with your exact question: 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook. In terms of learning the system, it should help.
I converted over to the Pathfinder skill system and combat maneuvers before I converted my last 3.5 campaign wholesale. It was just better and easier to work with.
The rest is more to taste, but I appreciate the math fixes to and lifestyle improvements to the fighter; a number of feat fixes like Power Attack, Cleave, and Toughness; baked-in sorcerer bloodlines; a generally more coherent and effective paladin; rogue talents; etc. With regard to monsters, Pathfinder greatly improves the math on some of the melee beaters.
The big thing going for PF is that it's a lot more balanced.Actually, a lot of the old problems are still here and some are just worse.
The OP didn't ask for this kind of thing and we already have a dozen acrimonious threads going on this very issue. Please don't.
For me, it's the openness of the Staff, the PRD, and the flavor of the rules.
Of all the D&D editions, I'd prefer either PF or AD&D if we wanted RP heavy and combat light.
Mind you it's true that the DM and your players are the only really critical part. You can have a really fun time with T&T too, with the right group. What's nice is that by and large, the PF rules don't get in the way of Fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP didn't ask for this kind of thing and we already have a dozen acrimonious threads going on this very issue. Please don't.The big thing going for PF is that it's a lot more balanced.Actually, a lot of the old problems are still here and some are just worse.
If you want reasons to change your going to want honest ones and some facts. It does someone disservice to state everything is going to be sunshine and lollipops. Someone who goes out of their way to buy books and/or spend time converting campaigns and playing this game deserves a full opinion of the good and bad. There are ups, like being able to play a barbarian about drunkenness or the large amount of great 3pp material, and there are downs, like a lack of subsystems like psionics without 3pp, innovation, and progress.
|
This has been touched on, but no one has stated it outright. For me, one of the biggest selling points for Paizo and Pathfinder is the published adventures. They're fantastic!
I played mostly Pathfinder Society for 2 years, and while there were a few adventures that were old style, generic dungeon crawls, most of the scenarios had some sort of interesting twist or non-combat plot that made them far more interesting. Recently, I've been GMing a Paizo adventure path, so I haven't been able to do PFS much, and the adventure path is very well written and fun to play, too.
And since they're all designed for Pathfinder, it's just easier to play along and use Pathfinder rules, though you probably could play them with 3.5 characters if you really wanted to.
My main gaming group for the last 15 years or so, were all into 3.5. I started hearing about PF and some of the little changes sounded fun. I ended up house-ruling in little tid-bits of PF, and before long it occurred to me that it was time to make the switch. Now in hindsight my friends and I all wish we would have made the switch sooner.
1)3.5 and PF are very similar. you already know the rules. It won't be a huge paradigm shift, but the changes make the game so much better in my opinion. My buddies have come to agree.
2)This is a more active community, with current material and support, with no end in sight.
3) Flavor fixes for most/all core classes Clerics! They can now channel AoE-heal the party, and don't have to sacrifice memorized spells to do it! Sorcerers! oh my... so, so much better. The bloodlines add a deep dynamic and interesting RP opportunities that didn't exist in 3.5. Barbarians! they're scarier than ever with their rage powers. Just to name a few...
4) skill system overhaul The skill system is so much better. No more ranks +3; you now have max ranks = level, and if its a class skill you get +3 to that skill. Brilliant fix. The new system has lumped together several skills for simplicity's sake. (spot, search, listen = perception. Jump, balance, tumble = acrobatics). The new system has removed Concentration as a skill, thus eliminating it as an essential skill-tax on all casters. Concentration is now a free ability that all casters get, just because. Brilliant move.
5) Cooler art!! ...just my opinion. I really enjoy the artwork in PF. The artwork in AD&D is half of what ensnared my imagination as a kid, so it means a lot to me. The 3rd edition art was good, but I find Wayne Reynolds' PF art to be superior.
6) Feats overhauled Many feats got a facelift and make a lot more sense. There are too many examples to name here.
7) Advanced player guide Super neat new classes like the Witch, Alchemist, Oracle, Inquisitor, Cavalier, Summoner... all are really neat and flavorful. This book also adds TONS of options that pick apart and swap out racial and class powers/abilities for a different power/ability. This adds a lot of depth for customization and keeps the core classes from getting to stale over time.
8) Adventure Paths So cool! There are loads of Adventure paths which are essentially campaigns broken up into guidebooks that will take characters from level 1 up through top levels. Great writing, great adventures. There are lots to choose from and more being written.
There are so many other changes that I love...
Better poison rules, MUCH better combat maneuver rules(grappling, disarm, etc), Pathfinder society organized play, just to name a few.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got to second Kokomo upthread. I converted to PF from 3.5 when my subscription to Dungeon Magazine by Paizo told me that it would be prematurely ending since Paizo's services were no longer needed. They gave me a credit. I didn't really know at the time what Pathfinder was but eventually I put that credit toward a CRB, just to try it out.
Now I went on into 4.0 and I've played a lot of different systems, so I'm also in agreement that the system doesn't matter. Dorkus Amongus upstairs gives a good bullet point list of upgrades from 3x to PF, but really you could homebrew a few things and keep going. However, let me tell you what Paizo did when I tried out PF.
They followed up.
Maybe it was just a form letter but they were glad to have had my business. Then I discovered their forum and there were some of the Devs, live, answering my questions. This is a company that honestly combines their love of money with love of game. I'm no simpleton; I know Paizo is a corporate entity that also has to turn a profit and pay its employees. But the folks I've talked to over the years have an honest passion for the work.
So Pathfinder then is supported not just with good products, but also with a good community. Paizo has excellent customer service and a very positive outlook. I also appreciate their transparency; James Jacobs and others have come right out and said they aren't here to please EVERYONE with the game they're making. However they want those who do enjoy the game to continue coming back for more. Their profit margin seems to be as much in customer retention as it is in new customers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's at least 4.5 times more fun than mowing your lawn.
Plus you won't have to put up with warlocks. (Sorry, warlock fans, but speaking as a GM, yikes.)
[MandatoryWarlockFanResponce] RabbleRabbleRabbleRabble! [/MandatoryWarlockFanResponce]
Gunslingers still lose to ragelancepounce and archers, as I recall, even with touch AC factored in. They don't win the DPR contest. Granted, I haven't done any testing myself and my memory is of a few threads months back, so I could very well be wrong.