D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?

[pogre]

But that is because Trailblazer was not hemmed in by a backward compatibility requirement which Paizo gave themselves for PF. Paizo wanted to tweak not redesign. Now one can, of course, argue how well they accomplished this, but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of a lack of design innovation when they were explicitly not trying to stray too far from 3.5.

I'm not attacking Paizo, but backward compatible was a goal of Trailblazer:

Trailblazer page 1:
Design Philosophy
When we set out to create the Trailblazer ruleset, we agreed to a strictly define our design process up front. We knew we wanted to stay backwards-compatible with the enormous library of 3e products;

I'm certainly biased, but I think Trailblazer accomplished this goal.

As to the original question - we jumped into 4e head first. Our group was playtesters and I ran a 4e campaign for a number of months. After giving it every chance, we decided it was not our cup of tea. We then moved onto one of my favorite games WFRP.

However, the D&D itch was calling again and I was considering going back to 3.5. Our most satisfying D&D campaigns had been core 3.5. I was still concerned with problems with 3.5, so one of my players loaned me his Pathfinder book. It did not address my concerns - it seemed like it threw the kitchen sink at the problems rather than streamlining.

Trailblazer matches my grittier style of D&D better and fixes almost every problem I had with 3.5 in a satisfactory way.

 

[gamerprinter]

Thread not about me, but...

Since I am both a GM and player of Pathfinder, this thread doesn't target me either, but... I was perfectly happy with 3.5 and do not have all the various 'the only thing wrong with 3e', because as far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with 3e at all.

However, I'm the guy in the group that urged them to try Pathfinder and now they love it. The switch over issues mentioned in this thread don't exist. While we periodically find a spell that works differently than it used to, in most cases they are improvements. To us it feels exactly the same as 3e, exactly, the differences are subtle really.

The reason I switched is because I'm a wanna-be publisher and OGL while still with a large audience wasn't current, and I figured I would have better luck working with a 'new system'. Also Pathfinder being the new kid on the block, didn't have existing settings that I want to build, that do exist in 3e. I don't want to be the number two or number 25th publisher who created a feudal Japan setting. I wanted to be first and only way to do that is create for a new system that has no existing other settings, which makes PF ideal for my publishing goals.

We looked at 4e, somebody bought the core books, but we all read them aloud and laughed and laughed - to us its hideous system and none to our liking at all (this is subjective to our group's mentality, not necessarily the game itself).

So though we play Pathfinder now and are loving it, we really had no reason to switch, beyond the fact that I'm the one buying all the PF stuff and I twisted their arms for a year now to try it. (Started while still in Beta).

One of the players is still a 3.5 grognard and plays along with the rest of the group's desires, but for the rest, I don't think they would go back to 3.5 now - Pathfinder hits the sweet spot, for most of us.

GP

 

[Dice4Hire]

But that is because Trailblazer was not hemmed in by a backward compatibility requirement which Paizo gave themselves for PF. Paizo wanted to tweak not redesign. Now one can, of course, argue how well they accomplished this, but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of a lack of design innovation when they were explicitly not trying to stray too far from 3.5.

From what I have read on the Pathfinder SRD, that is not even true. All the base classes are different, with new abilities, and mechanics.

Maybe you can play them together in the same party, or use old adventures, but I imagine it is quite difficult.

 

[gamerprinter]

From what I have read on the Pathfinder SRD, that is not even true. All the base classes are different, with new abilities, and mechanics.

Maybe you can play them together in the same party, or use old adventures, but I imagine it is quite difficult.

I think what is "backwards compatible" is being able to use a 3e adventure with almost no change whatsoever - I do tweak the BBEG and major NPCs to be more PF flavored, but most of the monsters I leave alone and the difference is hardly in existence.

Regarding the classes there's a four page conversion rules that shows you how to tweak a 3.5 anything to better fit Pathfinder, and some of the socalled over-powered classes in the 3e splats are now fitting just right in PF. The conversion between old characters to new is slight at best. So I think Starman's point was right on. Its one thing to look at the rules and say its a different game. Play one session and you'll see its the same game.

GP

PS: to me the reasoning Paizo created PF is not to remake 3.5, but to have a system on the FLGS shelves that supports their APs, when WotC removed the 3e books from the distribution channels, their APs were doomed. You can't sell or even distribute products to an FLGS without a current system, so they had to make 3.5 current again, which is what they did. But since they had to reprint it anyway (and spend money doing it), might as well do some tweaks for improvement. I don't think they did it to change the game so much as keeping their business a viable one.

 

[Argyle King]

From what I have read on the Pathfinder SRD, that is not even true. All the base classes are different, with new abilities, and mechanics.

Maybe you can play them together in the same party, or use old adventures, but I imagine it is quite difficult.

The main thing I've noticed in my very limited experience with Pathfinder is that some of the 3.5 classes need a little bit of a power jump to be on par with some of the new goodies that the Pathfinder versions of the classes are granted. In many cases it's not enough of a power difference that you will notice, but how much you notice can vary quite a bit depending on what you're trying to use. I imagine that it wouldn't be difficult to figure out appropriate capstone abilities for classes which haven't been Pathfinderized if I had more experience with the system, but I'm not sure.

 

[joela]

What are you using from Trailblazer?

Many folks here who continue to use the 3.x ruleset mention Trailblazer as part of their homerules. I'm curious: which rule(s) from TB are you using and why?

 

[sjmiller]

First, let me say that I also do not feel that Pathfinder and D&D 4e are "upgrades" from D&D 3.5. I also did not think that D&D 3.5 was necessary, but that is just me. Be that as it may, the reason I have not switched my game from my modified 3.0 game is because we are not done. We have a lot more we want to play using our current system. We do not seem to have the problems that others have with the older system, plus we all have the books we need.

For the record, I feel that Pathfinder and D&D 4e are side-steps, not upgrades. They are different game then my current one. It doesn't make them "better", just different.

As for Trailblazer, I find I disagree with just about every single design statement they made in the free DM's Day product, so I do not think I will ever purchase it.

 

[Wayside]

Those who post, would you mind sharing what you do play instead if you don't play either 4e or Pathfinder.

3.5e and 2e, if we're talking D&D only. As far as rules go, Pathfinder is a retread of 3.5e. I already have 3.5e and don't much care to pay for it a second time. Other than that I have no issues with Pathfinder as a rule set. As far as setting goes, though, Golarion is the kind of generic fantasy schlock I've been cursing under my breath since support for all the great 2e settings ended. I probably would have picked up Kingmaker were this not the case.

 

[dm4hire]

I’m playing Pathfinder and like most of the changes. I think where a lot of the misunderstanding with the class changes comes from is that Paizo was trying to bring the core classes up to par with later classes introduced into the game. If you compare the core classes to PHB II classes, or any of the various off shoot books, they really start to pale for the most part. Bard versus Beguiler, Necromancer from the Horror book, Book of Nine Swords classes versus fighter. Only certain core classes held up in my opinion over the long haul once you fixed their flaws, i.e. the druid with their shape changing.

It still comes down to preference in the end. I like Pathfinder, but if someone took all the open content of 3.x and cleaned it up and repackaged it and the rest of the open content I would buy it hands down. Especially if they consolidated everything like Paizo did with Pathfinder; I would gladly buy a complete 3.x book or at least a two volume set.

 

['Arry]

I use a houseruled mix of 3.0 and 3.5 which does what I want it to do. I don't need another set of rules at the moment. Also, for me, D&D = Forgotten Realms. As Pathfinder uses its own world is another reason for me not to use it.