Convincing a 4e group to try Pathfinder

[GMforPowergamers]

Wizards get the coolest toys I suppose.

qft...in any edtion/retroclone/version of D&D wizards always get the cool toys...

In my game which has a dominant Wizard PC, I style the game to work with and around this issue. Sometimes, the party can't afford to take a days rest and they know this beforehand. As such, the Wizard is more frugal with his spells so as to be effective across the entire day, making sure the overall task is completed. Other times, yeah, the wizard can nova. It is an issue but I believe it is one that the DM can easily manage.

I very rearly see casters nova (can't say never...wish I could) but with a little bit of forethought (very little we are not talking brian surgery here) I have found casters in general after around 8th or 9th level can keep up for atleast most of the day, and still get one or two BIG shows of power... by level 13+ I found (1e,2e,3e,3.5, C&C, and even belive it or not 4e) that it is rare for a caster not to dommanate the field...and if the game lasts to 17 or 18th level...well there is nothign anyone can do that compairs to 9th level spells..

((((((((((Now this comes with a condtional rider...I have seen one or two games that is not true of. I have seen 23rd level characters who's wizard and cleric never held there own...I have seen fighters at teens levels stand strong...heck I even once saw a mostly non multied fighter go to 16th level ans still be useful (He had 1 level of a prestige class)...however these are rare exceptions....)))))))))

infact by the end of us playing 3.5 it was generaly excepted that PC wizards should multi for atleast 3 levels with out +1 spellcaster things...to give the rest of us a chance to catch up a little.

 

[fba827]

either system has good and bad -and- both systems are for the fantasy type game (as opposed to say a Mutants and Mastermind/Champions RPG). So I don't view your question as a 4e vs 3.5e question but rather
"Is it worth it to introduce an alternate rules system?"

1. Would they need to purchase new books?
1b. Do you have any players that would _feel_ like they had to get new books (i.e. for late night reading or whatever) even if you said they didn't "have" to?
2. Is everyone having fun as it is?
3. You described them as all 'new' players, but in general are they all -enjoying it- as much as you think they should be ?
4. How long will they have been playing RPGs by the time you'd be starting this other campaign?
4b. How long will they have been playing 4e D&D specifically by the time you'd be satrting this other campaign?
5. Will the other rule set be 'different' enough to make it feel "worth the effort" to learn to these newbies? (if you're changing the tone of the campaign, then yes, but if you're goign from one standard sword & sorcery vanilla setting to another, they may not even notice many of the smal changes and it won't feel different)

If they were regular gamers, I'd say "go for it without question -- at the very minimum, you should be able to ask if they're willing to try out another system for a game or two"
The fact that they are all new gamers, they might feel a bit overwhelmed even by the question because you're talking about change when they are just still getting their feet wet. So (if it were me) it would come down to personality of what I know of the individuals... are they the sort of anxiously embrace change, or are they simply anxious about new stuff, etc.

Anyway, that's just my late night rambling.

 

[LFK]

My Warlord does hardly any damage compared to the Rogue and Ranger in our group - but I suppose his effectiveness in combat is on par: or at least I don't complain about the difference in damage output.

Likewise, it is the fact that the Fighter can take some damage and still do his thing effectively, regardless of the length of combat that makes them effective in combat - admittedly with the help of appropriate equipment. In a shorter combat, the Wizard can go nova which is what I think you are referring to but I don't think per combat is a fair way of looking at that. Obviously a wizard can't keep doing that all day in every encounter. Over the course of a typical day's adventuring, the output of the Fighter and the Wizard should be about equal give or take a little luck or circumstances going one way or the other. The wizard would not be able to do it on his own and I think that's a good thing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I suppose caveat emptor with short posts.

Yes, damage output alone isn't the sole consideration, or even the most important, but I was specifically referring to a damage comparison, the idea that wizard damage being limited balances with fighter damage being unlimited, so it was level ground for comparison.

What's ultimately important is having stuff to do that feels equally valuable, be it in hard numerical comparison or even just "rule of cool". A class that only ever swings a sword with a full attack is always going to feel like they underperform compared to flashier classes unless they do so much per swing that the numbers become flashy in and of themselves. It's why ToB was so popular, even if few of the maneuvers came anywhere close to the power of equivalent level spells: it makes the character feel more like an equal contributor.

What I was specifically referring to wasn't so much the wizard going nova as much as it was expected combat length. If we consider the relationship between Wizard and Fighter to be fair based on the fact that the Fighter has unlimited access to their damage then we need to look at the average length of combat to see if the Fighter will ever catch up or surpass the Wizard. To use a WoW comparison: your max mana is irrelevant if you have enough regen that you never run out. If combats are just naturally so short that the Fighter never catches up then "unlimited" is not really any kind of advantage. To reverse the situation: so what if the Wizard's resources are limited if they only run out in contrived scenarios?

 

[AllisterH]

To the OP:

Exactly what classes are they using?

As others have alluded to, depending on the class, they might not be happy with the experience in PF.

For example, a sorceror has way more option in 3.5/PF than the equivalent 4e sorceror. However, the 4e sorceror is much more resistant to "the suck" due to bad choices than the equivalent in 3.5/PF.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To the OP, I would echo the comments, run a one shot short adventure with pregen characters for the group outside the normal 4e campaign. If they like it then you could start a campaign otherwise hold off.

 

[jasin]

Pathfinder turned most of the save or die effects into save or take a load of damage which I think was a good thing - Finger of Death notably.

But they introduced new ones: the 20th-level bard ability, a performance to die for; the 20th-level rogue ability, which is much like the assassin's death attack; the 20th-level ranger ability, which kill favored enemies.

Sure, 20th-level, so they won't get that much spotlight time, but it still seems very odd to me to alter existing save or die effects as problematic, but then introduce new ones.