4e vs PFRPG

[paradoxweaver]

No edition flame wars allowed, please...

In fact, my question here is that, as my players and me love certain elements of PFRPG and certain others of 4e, and as I have read both versions of the adventures, I can't decide on which version we will play.

Has anyone been able to read both? Has anyone played the PFRPG version? The game reports I read were all in 4e...

 

[Morrus]

I think the decision really just comes down to which system you prefer.

I plan to run the Pathfinder version sometimes soon - our group became quite burned out on 4E eventually. Each system obviously feels differently.

 

[ve4grm]

It also depends on which adventure you're actually talking about. War of the Burning Sky? Zeitgeist? I assume Zeitgeist, but just to address the other first:

WotBS was designed for 3.5e, which works well as Pathfinder, and then converted to 4e. From everything I've heard, the first bunch of 4e adventures are somewhat weaker, while the later ones are good, but the 3.5 versions are solid throughout. For this, I'd probably recommend 3.5/Pathfinder.

Zeitgeist is designed in 4e and converted to Pathfinder. Both versions are quite good, with the Pathfinder versions even bringing in some good design cues from 4e during the conversions. For this, it's really up to you and your personal preferences. I'm running it in 4e, as I greatly prefer the system, but the PF versions are solid, as I said.

If you're still completely on the fence for Zeitgeist, with no preference one way or the other, I'd say 4e, solely because that's what it was designed for. The conversions have been solid, but there's always the chance of something not coming through quite as intended with system conversions.

Additionally, there have been (minor) instances in the conversions where 4e-specific terms/etc have been left in the PF versions due to, really, just getting missed, and that has led to some confusion. Again, these have been minor, and revised documents have fixed them, but it's a risk taken when using the conversion.

 

[bert1000]

I haven't run Zeitgeist yet but from a read through if you generally like both systems, I would suggest 4e.

I think Zeitgeist plays to 4e's strengths in that there are actually not that many combats per level. So far, there are really no parts that have strings of combat one after the other, which can test some people's patience in 4e. 4e does big set piece battles in between investigation, exploration, etc. really well.

I wish Zeitgeist had come out a few years ago as 4e would have benefited from a Zeitgeist type adventure earlier in its tenure to show that the system can easily do intrigue/political adventures just as well as combat heavy modules (actually better in my opinion).

 

[RangerWickett]

On a related note, adventure 5 is being written in Pathfinder first by Rugult (our PF conversion guy), and I'll be converting it to 4e.

 

[ve4grm]

On a related note, adventure 5 is being written in Pathfinder first by Rugult (our PF conversion guy), and I'll be converting it to 4e.

Interesting. I'm curious how that might affect the design.

Regardless, I think my prior comment still holds, as I'm guessing the majority will still be 4e to PF conversions. This does give some balance to the Pathfinder side, though.

 

[paradoxweaver]

Personnally, I much prefer the 4e system.
Problem is, this is a game I finally plan on playing with only one player, with NPCs I will play. The player will be squad leader and the NPCs will be his squad.
That's something we did in Pathfinder, and it was perfect for immersion and role-play.
I don't know if 4e will be as good for that...

 

[mcmillan]

Personnally, I much prefer the 4e system.
Problem is, this is a game I finally plan on playing with only one player, with NPCs I will play. The player will be squad leader and the NPCs will be his squad.
That's something we did in Pathfinder, and it was perfect for immersion and role-play.
I don't know if 4e will be as good for that...

I have little experience with 3e and none with Pathfinder, but my impression is NPCs would be built pretty much the same as a normal character. On the other 4e has the companion character guidelines set out in the DMG2, which give suggestions for simplified characters. Depending on your view, I could see benefits of either having fully complete characters or having the simpler easier to manage system that could work well especially if you'll be needing to run multiple characters plus the normal NPCs

 

[DonTadow]

I read both, and it really does come down to system preference. The campaign is designed for 4th edition, but they have an amazing pathfinder conversion guy who does a good job with the rules and even explaining 4e things like dragonborn.

 

[Rugult]

Interesting. I'm curious how that might affect the design.

Regardless, I think my prior comment still holds, as I'm guessing the majority will still be 4e to PF conversions. This does give some balance to the Pathfinder side, though.

I'm hoping the design won't be affected that much. Keep in mind that RangerWickett edits all the adventures, has a lot of experience with 3.5 from WotBS, and can generally decipher my Pathfinder conversions when they reach his desk.

Still, writing an adventure really made sense from my end. I've converted all Z material to date, so I'm pretty familiar with the setting, and I generally have an idea of where RangerWickett wants the story to go...

Unicorns. Expect herds of unicorns.*



*This is a pre-release statement. Under no circumstance should you be expecting unicorns in any way, shape, or form.