D&D 3E/3.5 Do you get the impression more people have left 3.5 for 4th?

[Tovec]

It's funny ... just today I said to my DM, "The more I learn about Pathfinder, the more I like it."

The more I learned about the current D&D version ... well, my opinion didn't so much as change as I was convinced I had made the right decision for me and the style of play I wish to have. The recent decisions that are alienating even 4E players/fans is completely bizarre to me ...

There did seem to be a large-scale refusal by a good chunk of 3.x fans to switch.

I agree with above statements about PF and 4e.

I think what most of us 3.5 people really wanted was a fix, a 4e that resembled more of a change from 3.0 to 3.5 than from 2e to 3e. Pathfinder has fixed a lot of core issues many of us had with 3.5. Now, its not so much I refuse to play 3.5 but like was previous said I feel spoiled by PF. I have opened up my PF games to select 3e books but I really don't like the statements we hear about 3e dying because of it.
Stagnation will lead to the end of a system eventually, yes people will refuse to move on to anything new but the system will not grow and it will remain the same. If you are playing 3.5 and want to get more material I don't see what the harm is in accepting PF sources. Either take the new material and incorporate it or don't its no big deal either way.
Personally if I were going to go back to 3.5 and run a game, I would make several new houserules from PF inspired rules and go with them. For years our groups had been using Perception and Stealth instead of the skills they were before. I would also use the PF versions of monk's flurry, barbarian's rage and paladin's smite, if nothing else.

PF may take people from 3.5 in the sense that 3.5 solely is not going to be played any longer. I don't really see what that matters however considering the system was already abandoned by WotC. If you want to run a 3.5 game then do it, there is nothing stopping you. All PF does is try and give a whole bunch of play tested codified rules to make things simpler and more enjoyable overall. Does that mean its perfect? No. It doesn't even mean PF doesn't create new problems. What does happen is the game evolves and in that way stays alive longer than people refusing to budge from a 3.5 mindset.
I say all of this as a 3.5 convert to PF. I remember being annoyed when I heard 3.5 was getting dropped by WotC for 4e and I wasn't thrilled by the play-test version of PF when I saw that too. It wasn't until a friend of mine got the core for PF and actually showed me some changes that I started to convert and take things at their face value.
Like I said, if I went back to 3.5 I would take a lot of changes from PF with me. There are a number of things that bug me, overall increase of power in the base classes included. But its not enough for me to want to switch back to 3.5 - unlike what happened when I first started to look at 4e.

 

[Dandu]

PF, by itself, is probably ok, but a lot of people do not like it due to the fact that it was advertised as being a fix for a lot of the issues in 3.5; however, it solved none of the fundamental balance problems with the system.

The people who designed Pathfinder knew that dark and horrible things happened in the depths of Charop, but had no idea what they were. When Pathfinder came out, they made some superficial changes but left the deeper issues untouched.

Ask yourself: At the end of the day, is the fighter still limited to doing stuff in combat while a wizard is able to contribute to a wide variety of situations?

Many people do not feel the need to switch over to a system different enough to necessitate a relearning of rules when it is not different enough to the product it is supposed to replace to matter.

 

[Ghendar]

Many people do not feel the need to switch over to a system different enough to necessitate a relearning of rules when it is not different enough to the product it is supposed to replace to matter.

Alternatively, many people do not feel the need to switch over to a system that creates a whole new framework (4e) when all they needed was some tweaks to the existing framework. (PF)

We can argue whether or not Pathfinder is truly an improved version of 3.x. That's a valid debate but it's also an irrelevant debate to those that do not want to move to 4e. 4e is not what they want.

 

[marv]

There did seem to be a large-scale refusal by a good chunk of 3.x fans to switch.

Count me as one of them. I've moved up to every edition except 4th. However, I wish Hasbro luck with 4th edition and its target audience. Any DnD player is a good thing, regardless of edition.

 

[dagger]

I posted this in another thread:

"I bought nearly every single 3/3.5 hardback/softback book that Wizards put out, and most in my group did the same. Even the most casual player we have bought 4 or 5.....

The only book I have bought since they switched to 4e is the PHB, and out of the other 7 regular gamers in my group only 2 have bought more than the PHB."

Look, we played 4e for over a year (maybe 15 months), and so we gave it a serious go. We are currently playing Pathfinder and I am trying to get a 1e game going.

 

[LordMonty]

My group play once a week and have played for coming on four years now. We have mostly played D&D 3.0/3.5 with all core books and the odd third party bit(nothing to broken good GM balancing etc). We recently moved fully over to patherfinder as it just felt a natural progression but still use all the D&D settings and obey the core book rules execpt using the patherfinder core books. Bar the xp rejig its gone smoothly and everyone is happy we still play in all the classic D&D settings Ravenloft, Faerun and others(using classic sorce books from 2nd ed all the way through to 4th).

To put it simply I bought all the 4th ed core books and faerun core books(they killed all the gods! I was gobsmaked) but without being rude is wasn't for me or my group we all read it over and stayed 3.0/3.5 till now and it is for us a clear and logical evolution with fresh ideas to go patherfinder. Maybe not everything is fixed and balanced but hell is life that fair? meh roll with the punches and throw down a few anti magic zones.

 

[Jhaelen]

Wow, I actually agree with Dandu!

Alternatively, many people do not feel the need to switch over to a system that creates a whole new framework (4e) when all they needed was some tweaks to the existing framework. (PF)

Imho, Pathfinder is basically identical to what continued WotC support for 3.5 would have been. 4e in contrast is a new game - one that you may or may not like.

If there ever is a D&D 5e, I certainly hope it will be as different from 4e as 3e was from 4e.

 

[MrFaust]

I hope I don't get a lot of hate mail for this but I don't find myself ever switching over to 4e or at most for not for a VERY long time. I've read over the rules and such and watched it being played a million of times and I just find too much I don't like about it. I'm not saying it is not a good system but the changes made to many of the classic formulas just ruin it for me. It comes off very simplified, I would even say it reminds me of a PC "Dungeon Crawler" in my own opinion. Though I wont be one of those people who bash it, that's just not my style of play. I feel that 3e has much depth and despite the few tweaks it may need it still runs quite smooth.

Plus I feel it was too soon when they made the switch over to 4e. They used the same basic system for 26 years before making a complete overhual. If you look at 1e or 2e they were pretty much the same just refined over many, many years it was in use (an it shows how well of a system it was that even now people still play 1e). When I look at 3e and see that it only lasted 8 years before they spat out a new system also made me think that WotC are looking to make some money and the easiest way of doing so is with a new system so we have to buy new books. I mean really, they could have expanded on 3e for quite some time and waited on 4th. We'll see if this rings true if in or around 2016 5e is released...

But that's just my opinion.

 

[scruffygrognard]

No one that I know of has switched to 4th edition. I only know 20 gamers or so but I'm a little surprised that none have made the switch.

My group tried 4th edition and knew after a few sessions that it wasn't for us.

 

[Knightfall]

Initially, 4e left me cold.

It was not what D&D was to me. Still, I took a look and found some things interesting. 4e dragonborn are cooler than 3e dragonborn. The 4e cosmology is an interesting alternative to the Great Wheel.

Yet, I couldn't get over how much the game I knew was changed. I felt a bit abandoned by WotC. The OGL was left behind along with decades of tradition.

I threw my hat into the Pathfinder ring, which I really like (but I don't love it). PF feels like the D&D I knew, yet it has blazed its own path through the industry. Golarion is a fairly unique construct with a lot of great flavor. However, I don't see myself running a game in PF anytime soon.

Instead I've fallen for a new mistress, Castles & Crusades. The game system is excellent and simple. I'm eagerly awaiting the Castle Keeper's Guide.

But I haven't given up on 4e completely. I've bought both of the Dark Sun books as well as the rulebooks/boxed sets for Essentials.

Essentials "FEELS" like D&D to me.

I dumped most of my pre-Essentials 4e books. I kept a few of the better books -- Demonomicon, the FRCG, Hammerfast, Manual of the Planes, & Underdark (just to name a few) -- and I'm looking forward to Heroes of Shadow, the Shadowfell boxed set, Neverwinter, and Book of Vile Darkness.

As long as D&D 4e continues to feature themes, the new monster format, and essentialized content/design, I'll continue to consider it. I might even consider DDI.