|
Funny enough ever so often in my neck of the woods its "why do people only want to play PF an not 2E" instead. As for everyone asking that kind of question. It's very rare. Unless one is talking to a edition warrior. Most players in the hobby want to have fun. Not go around pointing out to each other why one is playing Edition A VS B imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4E and 5E address a slightly different playerbase than Pathfinder. My superficial impression is: Their player's handbooks offer a combination of shiny options (eladrin, tiefling, 'angelic avenger') and a simplified rule system. Further they stress the existing campaign world quite a bit (hello Drizzt!). These three things basically shout 'CASUAL GAME!' to me. Well, both editions might still be complex, but I feel significantly less complex than Pathfinder.
Now Pathfinder has shiny options too, but it relies less on them. Often enough, Paizo will rather take something not-that-exciting, like a goblin and gnome, and turn it into something unique, interesting. The rules are complex and continue to grow - we are far beyond 2,000 feats and 2,000 spells now. Depending on the type of player, that's intimidating - or fascinating. Or not relevant, if you simply restrict yourself to Core or so. Golarion is a quite fleshed out campaign world nowadays, but Paizo won't throw it at you. It's like with the rules - look into it if you want, but it's not really mandatory.
I am the explorer type of player, primarily interested in exploring new options and combinations, less in actually achieving something ingame, being better than fellow players or socializing. So Pathfinder works well for me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the tactical complexity and how you can really zero in on characters. I also like, despite how complex it is, it's tied to significant baselines.
BAB means everyone has some degree of skill in combat. Ability Scores in a point buy system are easy to keep in the average zone of say, 8 to 14, keeping the numbers from getting skewed too badly unless the player actively tries to. And for the particularly clever, there are benchmarks in the form of average bestiary stats to compare to.
Compare this to something like Shadowrun or Gurps, where players buy everything with a single pool. The lack of solid benchmarks, the lack of a standard attack advancement, the massive amount of choice means that it's all too easy to create characters far below par. In Pathfinder, you have to abuse multiclassing unwisely, or actively build against your class to achieve similar results. That's not to say PF is balanced (lol!), it's just there's more guidance.
Then there's games like FATE, which I admire, but they simplify things to the point where oeverything is very mechanically similar to everything else. FATE is about playing with the system, with a bunch of entertaining but ultimately disassociated mechanics. When I use a boomerang, I want it to be mechanically distinct from a chainsaw.
I purchased Numenera the other day, and I actually quite like it. It hits a nice middle ground between all of these things. Simpler than Pathfinder, but still has a ton of choice- yet character creation is rigid enough that it's impossible to really screw it up. Weapons are very similar for ease of use (Which is a good thing!), but at the end of the day, there's enough mechanical distinctiveness that a boomerang will function significantly different than a chainsaw.
Still, Pathfinder will be my go-to for it's complexity, it's tactical depth, and it's massive amount of options. Especially because I'm starting to embrace homebrew and third party more and more, which fixes some of the rough edges.
PF is not necessarily my edition of choice, if only because it didn't adopt the 3.5 warlock or psionics, but I like it well enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still like Pathfinder and have very heavily invested in it. I'm still playing PF exclusively in play-by-post. However, I'm starting to get turned off by the sheer complexity of the rules and the attitude of "if it's not listed as something you can do, then you can't".
I've been moving toward more narrativist collective storytelling game experience for a while now. My in-person games of choice have become Dungeon World and FATE Accelerated, which are both much more free-form and far less complex games. They both also allow and/or encourage more player agency in world-building. I find both systems are far more condusive to sandbox-style play than any game in the D&D family.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder, but I also play other systems and run them too. I enjoy OpenLegend RPG, Savage Worlds (Deadlands Reloaded, Solomon Kane, Mutants and Masterminds) and the like. I think it's great people like Pathfinder. Pathfinder 2.0 is a hard pitch. Now people are asking them to change a large part of the Core players book and sell what they have and buy more. People already did that with DnD 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and in some cases 4e (though some have kept some of their books). It just gets even more expensive.
I like it as is. If you do a rule change, do a rule simplification compendium that takes the existing ones and make them more stream lined. This could be done in a Core 2.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I came here when D&D 3.5 was still thriving and Paizo was in posession of the licence for the Dungeon and Dragon magazines. I loved what they did there, so I kept onboard when they lost the license and tried something new with the Pathfinder adventure path concept. I'm much of a setting guy as well as an adventure guy, so I was intrigued, trusting enough that Paizo would come out with something good and still I was blown away by the end result. Add to that the community service which is stellar and that the Paizo officials are actively engaged in forum communication and you have a consumer that is so loyal, that when they asked if they should go 4E or do something else, I answered with "I don't care, I'll stay onboard no matter what."
Another big bonus in my book is that they continued the OGL movement, enabling 3PPs to publish a lot of additional options (about options I'm all with what Neil said in his blog), a lot of this stuff having a stellar quality.
So that I play Pathfinder has basically nothing to do with the system itself. Though I like some of the changes they did to 3.5 very much and generally like Pathfinder as well as I did 3.5, the very reason I'm still her is. as from the start, the setting and the adventures. And as there are other great settings out there taht support the system (especially Midgard and the Lost Lands) and Starfinder looks very promising to me so far, I don't think that I will go away anytime soon. It's not that I'm not interested in other systems and might also run some of those in the future, but at least for the foreseeable future, there's nothing on the horizon that makes me exited enough to stop playing and running Pathfinder.
There's one thing in the blog I disagree with, though. In my experience, it isn't really true that players can choose options totally independent from the GM. Starting with which books the GM allows, which options from those books they might decide against because they don't fit their vision of the setting and other things, you may not need help from the GM to create your character, but you still might need to get that permission slip allowing you to play it in the GM's campaign. I think that if you want to have more player agency, Haladir is very right that other systems might be better suited for that.
I love the versatility that is available when making characters. As was noted above there are more than 2000 feats and spells to choose from, so there's no reason you can't make a character uniquely your own.
I nick the best ideas PF has and retrofit them to 3.5. (Though I call it 3.Aotrs at this point, since its more a mutant hybrid at this point, doubly-so if I play ion my homebrew campaign world).
If you thinks that's bad, my other system of choice is Rolemaster, which is a hidioeus mutsnt hybrid of five editions of RM and two of SM the likes of which Man Is Not Meant To Know...
So, while I'm not all that intrested in PF's crunch (we have PLENTY enough crunchy in 3.Aotrs), aside from a few selected bits, I do get a lot of the Golarion material. It's been years soince any of us had the time to wrtie our own campaigns, and adventure paths are much easier to convert than AD&D modules, regardless of whether they're 3.5 of Pathfinder. And Golarion is the first campaign world - like ever - that I buy the source material just to read the fluff for. (It has an honest-to-goodness proper solat system for cryin' out loud!)
I do VERY much appreciate the PF SRD, though. It means that the APs are not limited to just Core stuff and can use all the new toys without having to detail it in full every time (for all them as plays PF proper-like) while leaving folk like me (or who don't own every mechanics book) in a position we can look up what bits we need to run them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like PFs options, I just wish it were more balanced. I wish a lady in plate with a broadsword and no magic could be as relevant as a 300 year old elf wizard dude. I wish I could make a shurikin-only build that was as relevant as said elf wizard. Or a defense focused character that wasn't irrelevant in a world of nuke tag.
PF has options. Most of them are bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like PFs options, I just wish it were more balanced. I wish a lady in plate with a broadsword and no magic could be as relevant as a 300 year old elf wizard dude. I wish I could make a shurikin-only build that was as relevant as said elf wizard. Or a defense focused character that wasn't irrelevant in a world of nuke tag.
PF has options. Most of them are bad.
The question is: relevant for what? An elf wizard may overshadow a woman in platemail with a sword and no magic in some situations, but they don't have to in others. And a campaign doesn't have to limit itself to the ones in which he does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My (sort of) elven wizard witch relies on her dear woman in platemail breastplate with a sword (and shield) and no magic to cover her ass and keep her alive.
Everybody is useful. Maybe classes are not balanced and I don't think they could be because of the versatility magic offers. But in a game that encourages teamplay all roles in a team are equally important.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that it is the players and the DM that makes a game great, not the system.
However, since i can do ANY character i want- a smart fighter with some magic? A dwarf paladin? A powerful rogue, a tricky wizard, a detective with a gun, a super healer support PC..... I feel Pathfinder has a slight edge for me.
BUT I had fun playing 4th, AD&D, 3.5 and even other systems like T&T, Runequest, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that it is the players and the DM that makes a game great, not the system.
However, since i can do ANY character i want- a smart fighter with some magic? A dwarf paladin? A powerful rogue, a tricky wizard, a detective with a gun, a super healer support PC..... I feel Pathfinder has a slight edge for me.
BUT I had fun playing 4th, AD&D, 3.5 and even other systems like T&T, Runequest, etc.
Indeed, a good GM will be able to pull out a good story from a not so good game and a poor GM will probably not do so good even with a nice game and setting.
Said that, I've found systems on many games to be pretty lacking. (I'm not talking about D&D 5th ed as I've not played it). Even with a good GM and story if the mechanics are boring the mechanic part won't be very fun to play. If all characters have similar abilities players will probably get tired of the game kinda soon.I like Pathfinder because you can get started with rather simple rules and then add all the new things when you learn the basics. It makes some improvement simplifying some mechanics that were innecesarily complicated without making it too simple.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D since I got the Moldvay box for Christmas. Pathfinder is the version of the game that I've always wanted to play. I love it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the reasons I love Pathfinder.
1. Accessibility: there is always a regular game going in my local area and the local game shops stock a fair range of books.
2. The PRD/SRD: if I don't have my books with me I can look up the rules on my phone.
3. The OGL: which means there is heaps of cool 3P content to draw from.
4. Nostalgia with options: back in the 80s my friends and I started with D&D. Pathfinder lets me relive the old days but with many more options to choose from.
5. The APs: the adventure paths are really well written and fun to play.
6. Golarion: very diverse and interesting world, plenty of story and adventure hooks for me to make use of.
7. Support: the game is well supported by Paizo and the fans. If I have any questions I can go on to the forum and search for a thread that answers my question.
8. The look: the artwork throughout the books, especially the maps, looks amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to d20 fantasy tabletop, Pathfinder is my game of choice. I am familiar with the system, have tonnes of the books, and like the vast array of options available.
Now overall, it's my second choice in games, but that's another story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the forums are great for helping out a player with questions and advice (as long as they can stay on track..lol). I love that about PF.
Nice friendly and happy thread!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main reason for supporting PF is the people that make it. I really appreciate the thought and care they put into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder sanded down some of the warts of 3.5, and I love the business culture of Paizo, if that makes sense.
I was a TSR loyalist back in the day, I still play the L5R RPG put out by AEG, I've played in White Wolf's sandbox (including the Arthaus run on Ravenloft, which was a rewarding experience), I've been on a lifelong ride with Chaosium, I've given WotC piles of money over the years, I've attended a Games Workshop Games day as a retail rep...
Paizo, by far and away, does the best job of blending a certain bean-counting pragmatism with being accessible and friendly- most gaming companies I've interacted with are too much of one or the other. Some of that is the people they employ, but it's also just a company-wide approach which I appreciate.
I just started with 3.5 then we bought the pf core rulebook thinking it might help to guve another perspective, we liked it and stuck with it. I love pf for all the builds and options, i don't mind other style rpgs, but i love thinking up builds and combos, so pf is great
It isn't, I'd still rather be running 3.0, but my players want to play Pathfinder. That said, it is close enough.
I do really like the formatting of the Bestiaries much more than the wotc Monster Manuals.
Still being able to use all my 3.x library is great too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice friendly and happy thread!
Eh, I suppose a little edition-warring can be swept under the rug.
Paizo, by far and away, does the best job of blending a certain bean-counting pragmatism with being accessible and friendly- most gaming companies I've interacted with are too much of one or the other. Some of that is the people they employ, but it's also just a company-wide approach which I appreciate.
I do like Paizo as a company. They seem to be very customer-attentive, and I love their liberal social attitude of inclusiveness. I just wish they were more progressive with the ruleset.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice friendly and happy thread!
I have faith someone will knock it over at some point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice friendly and happy thread!I have faith someone will knock it over at some point.
I hate Pathfinder and I hate you all! I am only here because I am a masochist!
...
Just kidding. The temptation was too strong xD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice friendly and happy thread!I have faith someone will knock it over at some point.I hate Pathfinder and I hate you all! I am only here because I am a masochist!
...
Just kidding. The temptation was too strong xD
Here I was hoping the part about the masochism was true! LOL
My group only meets once a month or so (maybe 8 to 10 sessions a year), so PF is great because in PF building your character and planning it can be a lot of fun during "downtime." Pathfinder really rewards rules mastery. Someone upthread said there were 2000+ feats and 2000+ spells. Combine that with umpteen PrCs, archetypes, alternate race features, favored class bonuses, traits, and magic items, and it's almost impossible to not create a unique character. It also really rewards tactics and getting every little bonus you can.
But we've switched to 5E because it's a lot easier for "casual" gamers. It's "rules-lite." It's also a whole lot quicker when it comes to combat because it's so elegant and stripped down, rules wise, without being stripped down, options wise.
I've gamed a lot, star wars(2 editions), D&D (3 editions). Deadlands (classic) and now Pathfinder. All of them have their pros and cons but my favorite is probably deadlands classic, but only because the system is so different from all the rest. We currently play a kind of mash up of pathfinder/3.5, it works just fine for us. I think as long as the GM/DM and group are one the same page any thing can work and all of them can be very entertaining. The only one we've ever had a problem with really is star wars and that was more from a character motivation point than from a system problem.
|
My group only meets once a month or so (maybe 8 to 10 sessions a year), so PF is great because in PF building your character and planning it can be a lot of fun during "downtime." Pathfinder really rewards rules mastery. Someone upthread said there were 2000+ feats and 2000+ spells. Combine that with umpteen PrCs, archetypes, alternate race features, favored class bonuses, traits, and magic items, and it's almost impossible to not create a unique character. It also really rewards tactics and getting every little bonus you can.
But we've switched to 5E because it's a lot easier for "casual" gamers. It's "rules-lite." It's also a whole lot quicker when it comes to combat because it's so elegant and stripped down, rules wise,...
Sounds about right...
without being stripped down, options wise.
...and you lost me.
I love 5E design and specifically B.A. (with the exceptions of the skill system it sucks) though I feel the character options are entirely inadequate in comparison to PF. After years of the 3.5/PF system mastery game, I can see why 5E would be quite refreshing for many gamers. Though chargen has become an absolute bore. Once the honeymoon period ends, 5E becomes old hat quite fast. Which is why 5E is the game I want to run, but PF is the game I want to play. YMMV
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group started playing together right when 3rd edition came out. We upgraded to 3.5 and enjoyed it for many years. 4th edition just didn't set well with us. So when I stumbled upon a picture of Seltyiel I, recognized WAR's work and followed it back to it's source. The Pathfinder Beta test. Haven't looked back. Well, actually my friend said that he was willing to switch to Pathfinder but that was the last damn time we changed systems. We only get to play on Saturday nights for +/- 4 hours with our group so it helps to stick to one system. I also appreciate the way Paizo staff interacts with the community.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We had the option of switching to 5th Edition from PF, and I'll be honest that 5E was looking OK until this:
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. [...]
At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points.
To me it just feels like they don't even care about verisimilitude. I get that this sort of rules-lite thing has an audience, but that audience is not me. I want the world to make a little more sense than this. The ruleset seems to have over-corrected into too little complexity and too little detail for my tastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pan:
I meant options in combat. Not character build options. You can move and attack, shove (push back or trip) an opponent, disarm, grapple, etc. You can even use an object without it taking up your action, like opening a door, pulling out a potion, or knocking over a lamp.
Obviously, there are few feats and archetypes and class options, but it's still new....
John Mechalas:
The DMG has rules for grittier or more realistic games, such as spending Hit Dice to heal during a long rest, regaining them slower, etc.
There are also tables for wounds and critical hit wounds (like missing eye, severed hand, etc.). So that can be gritty too.
5th Edition is very flexible for different play styles.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We had the option of switching to 5th Edition from PF, and I'll be honest that 5E was looking OK until this:
To me it just feels like they don't even care about verisimilitude. I get that this sort of rules-lite thing has an audience, but that audience is not me. I want the world to make a little more sense than this. The ruleset seems to have over-corrected into too little complexity and too little detail for my tastes.A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. [...]
At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points.
[tangent]
The net effect of 5th edition is to nerf magical healing into the ground, especially at low levels. Wealth gain (especially at lower levels) is dramatically reduced and potions of healing are the 50gp per hit and the only healing consumable you can buy... and thus in short supply. To replace this, PCs are more reliant on spell slots and natural healing - both in the long rest and spending-hit-dice form, but the latter, while a neat addition, are extremely limited. Adding to that, the monster and encounter design is a lot more brutal on the PCs.
Or in fewer words: They traded out the magic-stick-ritual (aka wands) for improved natural recovery in an attempt to control hp recovery and balance the adventuring day... though in my experience it results in our 5E parties long-resting way more often than our PF parties, almost entirely due to hp loss.
[/tangent]
Given the abstract nature of hit points (and ability scores, and so on), and the myriad of assumptions that go into the game, I don't think "you regain all of these abstract things called 'hit points' after resting for 8 hours" is any more immersion breaking than the existence of spell slots and their recovery at the same rate.
It's less about verisimilitude (because really, "hit points" as a mechanic aren't), and more about what each person has come to accept as a "norm" within the game. To blatantly steal Greg Tito's analogy: A 50-tonne dragon that flies is something most people will accept as a perfectly 'realistic' part of their fantasy universe, but a four-winged dragon would offend many people for being 'unrealistic and immersion breaking'. It isn't that the former is actually any more realistic, it's just that they're used to it.
It's the same reason why I know players who refuse to go near D&D because the concept that anyone could laugh off being shot with a crossbow just because they're a 10th level fighter simply offended their sense of immersion too much to be willing to play.
To them, and to everyone else, I say: It's an abstraction made for purposes of gameplay and a tangible feeling of progression. All games have them to some degree. Don't fret about the details too much and just enjoy the story :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like pathfinder because of the complexity, the wide variety of adventure paths, and the large community around it.
I like 4e because of how well-designed the rules are and how balanced it is.
I could go on about many other games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love theorycrafting and number crunching. I'm going to be honest here, I've only really played five or so 1st level sessions. Yet I have over 1000 posts on this forum because of theorycrafting and number crunching, and I have over a dozen aliases just for my theorycrafting and number crunching.
I doubt I'll ever get bored.
For me I haven't found anything better over all.
I've tried many other similar style games but found Pathfinder the game we always end going back to.
I think though it's not so much the rules. It's the Glorian that brings us back. Just such rich setting that you can do anything you want in.
I like PFs options, I just wish it were more balanced. I wish a lady in plate with a broadsword and no magic could be as relevant as a 300 year old elf wizard dude. I wish I could make a shurikin-only build that was as relevant as said elf wizard. Or a defense focused character that wasn't irrelevant in a world of nuke tag.
PF has options. Most of them are bad.
My solution to your problem is implementing Pathfinder unchained magic rules. Limited magic and esoteric spell components helps balance things out. As person who plays casters you might think it would suck but I found it made thing much more interesting. But then I like that sort of thing scrounging for components. I kind of miss that from 2E days when fireball require you to have bat dung and sulfur to cast.
I think (not 100% sure) that in 5th Edition, you don't show any visible wounds until you are below 50% of your normal hit point maximum.
So, as an abstraction of health as a resource to be managed, that's kind of cool.
The DMG has rules for grittier or more realistic games, such as spending Hit Dice to heal during a long rest, regaining them slower, etc.
There are also tables for wounds and critical hit wounds (like missing eye, severed hand, etc.). So that can be gritty too.
5th Edition is very flexible for different play styles.
Thank you! That is very helpful. I didn't get as far as the DMG, so I will revisit the system and give it a fresh look.
Or in fewer words: They traded out the magic-stick-ritual (aka wands) for improved natural recovery in an attempt to control hp recovery and balance the adventuring day... though in my experience it results in our 5E parties long-resting way more often than our PF parties, almost entirely due to hp loss.
Thank you for your insight on this. I suspected that this is what would happen in the game. It's already an issue with Vancian-based casters. On the other hand, I can see the point that HP as a mechanic is not really about wounds so much as fatigue until you drop to zero and below.
Of course, that interpretation is problematic for arrows, crossbows, and other ranged weapons...but that's not 5E's fault. HP in general are a legacy mechanic dating back to the original D&D. It's basically been broken since inception.
It's probably exhausting dodging out of the way of an arrow. Or getting nicked in the shoulder a lot.
"It's just (another) flesh wound..."
When I play (as a player and as a DM), I really try to encourage plenty of short rests. Just call them Lunch Breaks, and it's not that big a deal.
I kind of liked WoD's wound point system. The first hit didn't affect you much at all, but the more you hurt, the worse you did on your rolls.