Convincing a 4e group to try Pathfinder

For over a year now I've been playing 4e and loving it. I recently looked at a Pathfinder book at my local bookstore, and wow it seems like they fixed most of the issues with 3.5, not to mention the beautiful artwork and detail that Paizo puts into it, not to mention the fact that I absolutely loved their Adventure Paths.

My one problem with 4e is that it puts too much emphasis on your role, and less on your concept; in fact, the game basically punishes you if you choose to play what you want and not what the group needs. This alone makes me want to revisit 3.x via Pathfinder, since I would much rather be able to tell my players the theme of the campaign, and let them make whatever their heart desires that fits the theme, than have at least one person who ends up having to play a certain character class because otherwise the group will be without a tank/aoe/buffer/dps.

The issue is that my group, except for my current DM (who I've mentioned previously in other threads) are all entirely new to D&D and all they know is 4e. They have a hard enough time remembering what their attack and damage is with certain powers; they barely do any roleplaying or character development (although to be fair I blame the DM because he's just running published adventures without even making an attempt to tie them together into a story). I'm sorely tempted to suggest at our next game that we give Pathfinder a shot, instead of the 4e Eberron game I'm supposed to be running. After all 3.5 wasn't that much more complex than 4e was in most regards.

Has anyone done this and convinced a group that only has played 4e to try something new? Given the group dynamics (newbies, have trouble with 4e, very casual gamers who don't really care about RPing) would I be wasting my time?

Well, I would start discussing the new campaign, right after your 4E sessions, while everyone is still gathered together. Sell them what you can do with Pathfinder (more character customization, less focus on role, and more variey in general) that you can't do with 4E. If they seem amenable to it, ease them into it. Give them a tutorial on Pathfnder's rules, especially where they differ greatly from 4E. You might even want to mkae pregens for them.

We did, but to be fair our group didn't like 4e so reverted to what we did before. Rather a different situation.

But at its core- something similar. Basically, is your group enjoying themselves now? And if they are, given that they're "casual gamers" will changing systems and asking them to learn new rules cause them to just shrug and find something else to do with their free time?

If so- maybe let it alone. Cause that's the last thing you want. Also- will they be annoyed with needing to buy another book?

If you think they'll handle a switch to another system though and pick up the book, then I'd say go for it. Mostly because you're going to be DMing the new game- and a lot of the complaints about 3.x were on how hard it was on the DM. If you're ok with it, that's a pretty big hurdle overcome.

Plus a DM tends to put a lot more into the game/system, and you should be as happy as possible or the entire group & campaign will suffer for it.

At the very least, would they be willing to try it for a session? Perhaps with pre-genned characters? With you as a DM (assuming you're better than the current one [which your post seems to indicate]), perhaps they'll have a better time. And the better time they have may be equated as much with the fun new system as with you DMing. In which case, they'd happily jump on board with pathfinder even if their better experience is mostly you rather than the system.

Hope some of this helps

Its hard to say really. I'm very much a believer in the idea that when introducing new players to D&D you should use the system the DM knows best. That cuts down on the difficulties of multiple people trying to learn the system.

On the other hand, if the new players you mention like martial style characters then its entirely possible that 3.5 could be easier to pick up for them, even if you've spent the last year not playing it. Fighters / Barbarians etc are notoriously easy to run in 3.5 because of the dearth of options. From what I've read of Pathfinder this remains much the same.

The main concern I'd have, however, is for the DM. I know that the thought of DMing 3.5 style games is unappealing to me now that I've played 4e for a year plus. AT the end of 3.5 I could adjust monsters on the fly, and knew spells well enough that I didn't have to slow play too much. Now, however, there's no way I could prepare NPCs for combat without a vast amount of effort. Admittedly this wouldn't really be an issue until mid-levels when spell lists get crazy.

No idea if that has helped at all, but I can see how it would be possible to switch from 4e to PF without too many issues. It would move workload from the new players (assuming they play 'easy' classes), to the DM and higher learning curve class players.

wayne62682 said:

My one problem with 4e is that it puts too much emphasis on your role, and less on your concept; in fact, the game basically punishes you if you choose to play what you want and not what the group needs.

Click to expand...

*cough* cleric *cough*

wayne62682 said:

This alone makes me want to revisit 3.x via Pathfinder, since I would much rather be able to tell my players the theme of the campaign, and let them make whatever their heart desires that fits the theme, than have at least one person who ends up having to play a certain character class because otherwise the group will be without a tank/aoe/buffer/dps.

Click to expand...

*cough* cleric *cough*

wayne62682 said:

I'm sorely tempted to suggest at our next game that we give Pathfinder a shot, instead of the 4e Eberron game I'm supposed to be running. After all 3.5 wasn't that much more complex than 4e was in most regards.

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that the DM should get more input than the players on what system the campaign will use, since the DM has to run the thing. Of course, if the players are decidedly against it, I'd advise just sticking with 4E. But most players should be relatively open to trying new systems (new to them, anyway). Contrary to popular complaint, 3.5 is not that different to 4E.

Convincing a 4E group to try Pathfinder? Downgrading? (I kid, I kid!) Speaking as a 4E fan, I'm actually somewhat interested in having a look at Pathfinder, which I understand has a pretty cool setting. That said, I'm not sold on the mechanics of Pathfinder. To paraphrase something I read a lot of last year, "I just don't like the direction in which Paizo is taking D&D"; if I did like their direction, Pathfinder would look a lot more like 4E. In this vein, I'm not convinced that you are (or were) ever any more free of "roles" than you are in 4E, because previous editions of D&D had roles too, except that they were more latent -- implicit rather than explicit.

wayne62682 said:

For over a year now I've been playing 4e and loving it. I recently looked at a Pathfinder book at my local bookstore, and wow it seems like they fixed most of the issues with 3.5, not to mention the beautiful artwork and detail that Paizo puts into it, not to mention the fact that I absolutely loved their Adventure Paths.

My one problem with 4e is that it puts too much emphasis on your role, and less on your concept; in fact, the game basically punishes you if you choose to play what you want and not what the group needs. This alone makes me want to revisit 3.x via Pathfinder, since I would much rather be able to tell my players the theme of the campaign, and let them make whatever their heart desires that fits the theme, than have at least one person who ends up having to play a certain character class because otherwise the group will be without a tank/aoe/buffer/dps.

The issue is that my group, except for my current DM (who I've mentioned previously in other threads) are all entirely new to D&D and all they know is 4e. They have a hard enough time remembering what their attack and damage is with certain powers; they barely do any roleplaying or character development (although to be fair I blame the DM because he's just running published adventures without even making an attempt to tie them together into a story). I'm sorely tempted to suggest at our next game that we give Pathfinder a shot, instead of the 4e Eberron game I'm supposed to be running. After all 3.5 wasn't that much more complex than 4e was in most regards.

Has anyone done this and convinced a group that only has played 4e to try something new? Given the group dynamics (newbies, have trouble with 4e, very casual gamers who don't really care about RPing) would I be wasting my time?

Click to expand...

To answer your question ("Am I wasting my time?") more directly, I'm going to have to say that I think you might be. Personally, I have a lot of experience with new and casual players -- in fact, all of my games have been with people I've recruited to D&D myself -- and I'm pretty sure that switching systems could jeopardize a lot of your group's momentum and interest, especially if it's to a system that's more complicated and less "fun" to play than what they're used to. If you're going to pull it off, it will be essential that A) the group harbours some frustration with 4E, and that B) you can sell Pathfinder to them as a solution to those frustrations. (If you try to switch them off of a system they love to a system they don't, you risk stirring up a lot of resentment towards both you and the system you're trying to introduce.)

Honestly, you haven't really made it clear why you need to switch at all. You haven't really explained whether or not the other players in your group enjoy 4E, which will prove to be a major factor in this. Also, as I pointed out above, your complaint about 4E may not be solved by playing a different system, because roles are an essential part of D&D (even when they aren't spelled out as such). As for newbies and casual gamers, again, you really risk alienating them if you switch them off of a system that they've just started to enjoy and get the hang of. Long story short, this has very little to do with the system and a lot to do with your group; be very careful before forcing a change on them.

Also, FWIW, if you do decide to go with Pathfinder, you should still be able to run the Eberron setting with that system, IIUC.

EDIT: I want to be clear that I don't intend to disparage Pathfinder (much) with this post. It genuinely looks like a quality product! Rather, my point is that switching systems may not solve the OP's problem, as well as that it might create a lot of new problems too, and that the OP should think it over very carefully before switching.

mikegillnz said:

On the other hand, if the new players you mention like martial style characters then its entirely possible that 3.5 could be easier to pick up for them, even if you've spent the last year not playing it. Fighters / Barbarians etc are notoriously easy to run in 3.5 because of the dearth of options. From what I've read of Pathfinder this remains much the same.

Click to expand...

If the PCs really like martial style, then I would be warey of going to pathfinder...imagin going from 2-3 encounters, 2-3 at wills, 2-3 dailys, along with basic attack and bull rush options to attack, or full attack...

as you said a dearth of options...


it would be quite the shock to go from one extreme to the other (alot of us here did), but going from more to less I think would be worse....

I'll compare from 4E.
Wizards: do get at wills (Hand of Appretice and cantrips, but no encounter powers). More Dailys.
Clerics: get More dailys, but less at wills.
Fighters: lose everything but basic attack. More feats.
Druid: Now in the Core book, can't change shape till 5th, can gain Ranger's animal companion or a domain (Animal grants a Companion too), but gain more dailys.
Bard: Now a Core class, less at wills/encounters, but Dailes.
Barbarian: Rage no longer a Daily (now certain number of rounds), but lose encounter/at wills.
Monk: less movement abilities, less dailies, but better at grappling.
Paladin: Lose Divine Challenge, but better Striker.
Ranger: Lose Hunter ability (replaced with favored enemy), Animal Companion weaker, but get feats.
Sorceror: Similiar to Wizard but gets a bloodline. Grants an at will.

That sums it up in 20 words or less for each Class (except Druid as it is the major change: gained alot).

Fighter kinda loses out on class features (Armor Training is nice but Combat Challenge really makes a the 4E fighter strong starting at 1st).
Paladin is better at combat but less at holding enemies at bay/not attacking allies.
Druid players gain alot so they would be a easy sell.
Rangers gain a decent amount as well so that works, but lose encounter/daily damaging powers.

Warlord players are at a disadvantage: what are you offering them. Bard doesn't help.

Do you have Tome of Battle or PHB 2?
Crusader would fit Warlord some, but Dragon Shaman/Marshall might as well.

Starbuck_II said:

I'll compare from 4E.
Wizards: do get at wills (Hand of Appretice and cantrips, but no encounter powers). More Dailys.
Clerics: get More dailys, but less at wills.
Fighters: lose everything but basic attack. More feats.
Druid: Now in the Core book, can't change shape till 5th, can gain Ranger's animal companion or a domain (Animal grants a Companion too), but gain more dailys.
Bard: Now a Core class, less at wills/encounters, but Dailes.
Barbarian: Rage no longer a Daily (now certain number of rounds), but lose encounter/at wills.
Monk: less movement abilities, less dailies, but better at grappling.
Paladin: Lose Divine Challenge, but better Striker.
Ranger: Lose Hunter ability (replaced with favored enemy), Animal Companion weaker, but get feats.
Sorceror: Similiar to Wizard but gets a bloodline. Grants an at will.

That sums it up in 20 words or less for each Class (except Druid as it is the major change: gained alot).

Click to expand...

wow what a set of 20 words...some classes get alot more powerful, some lose power...guess what that does to balance...

I guess it isn't bad aslong as you play primary casters and not primary weapon classes...

wayne62682 said:

My one problem with 4e is that it puts too much emphasis on your role, and less on your concept; in fact, the game basically punishes you if you choose to play what you want and not what the group needs. This alone makes me want to revisit 3.x via Pathfinder, since I would much rather be able to tell my players the theme of the campaign, and let them make whatever their heart desires that fits the theme, than have at least one person who ends up having to play a certain character class because otherwise the group will be without a tank/aoe/buffer/dps.

Click to expand...

It's really not all that necessary to have every role filled; about the only thing that's kind-of necessary is a leader-role type, but that was essential in 3.5 too (more than that, a cleric was essential; there were no good substitutes). And even there, it's easier to get by without one than in 3.x; many non-leader classes have minor healing / temporary HP granting powers, everyone has healing surges and second wind, and most characters can take a leader multiclass feat if they really need to (anyone with an Int, Wis, Cha, or Str of 13 or better can take a leader class multiclass feat; since there isn't any class that's Dex primary/Con secondary or the other way around, everyone should have a 13 in at least one of those stats).

Just to give an example --

The current group I'm playing 4e in is 3 strikers (tiefling rogue, human barbarian, changeling sorcerer), one defender (human swordmage), and one leader (warforged cleric). It's working more effectivley than the last party with the same players, which was balanced in terms of roles (it was elf ranger, human warlock, half-elf warlord, human fighter, eladrin wizard). Granted, we know the system a little better now, but I think we were doing okay with the old party.