Pathfinder 1E Finally Looked at the Pathfinder Rules...

[SpydersWebbing]

This isn't supposed to be an edition war thread, but just a look at the Pathfinder system as a 4th edition lover.A combination of power gamers and the lackluster paladin class really turned me off to third edition, so I was one of the people who jumped ship at the first announcement of 4th edition. I wholeheartedly embraced the new system with all it's new ideas. But a part of me still longed for the old paradigms of 3.5, and was nostalgic for my very first gaming system. So when I heard that 3.5 was being redone by Paizo I was interested in the sense of being interested in an ex-girlfriend who I never completely got over. I wanted to believe that the system could be fixed, I really did.

So when I saw that they had fixed the system in all the ways that mattered to me I was excited and confused. Excited, because everything that I had hated about the system had been fixed. The Paladin is awesomesauce, the eternal destroyer of evil that he was always supposed to be. The game looks more balanced, with encounter building actually looking easier. The entire game looks overhauled and expanded. Could it be? Had my nostalgic dream been done?

Yes, I believe it has been. The question is, will I? I don't know yet. I've put plenty of money into 4th already, but I'm more than willing to invest in Pathfinder as well.

In the end do I prefer either system? I really don't know at this point. I guess I'm asking that people who have played both systems give their input, long as it's constructive criticism. I don't want this to be a flame war by any means, so please don't take my interest in hearing both sides and make it into a horrible argument.

Thanks for all the input in advance!

 

[Remathilis]

My story...

I was one of those people who saw glaring flaws in 3.5. So I heartily embraced 4th when it came out. We played it for around a year and realized we weren't having fun with it. I luckily didn't invest heavily (5 hardbacks + the DM screen) so the idea of backtracking into 3.5 wasn't a big deal. We played an old game for a while, then started up a brand-new 3.5 game right before PF came out. At the time, I had zero interest in Pathfinder; I thought they un-necessarily bumped PC power to 11. If overpowered PCs was my 3.5 gripe that lead me to 4e, powering them up MORE wasn't going to fix it...

Boy, was I wrong.

In the end, it was the little things that won me over. The skill system (class/cross-class) was simple, elegant and effective! Plenty of high-level fighter feats in the core book. Rogues actually able to buy the core thief skills with his eight initial skill points (no more rogues-as-smart-as-mages!). Turn Undead replaced with a much more utilitarian power. CMB/CMD removing the headache (mostly) from grapple.

Some of my gripes remain; magic is still king (though some egregious spells are toned down or fixed) summons are still a headache, monster stats require a lot of page (and book) flipping. Still, its a vast improvement for those who enjoy the feel of 3.5-style D&D but want some of the 4e "fixes" and ideas.

 

[joela]

I guess I'm asking that people who have played both systems give their input, long as it's constructive criticism.

I currently play/run both systems. What'd you like to know?

 

[dm4hire]

I jumped whole heartedly into 4e and own just about every book through DMG II. I played it for about a year, including a home campaign that lasted about six months. I have several LFR characters including a 5th level Drow Shadow Pact warlock. My disparity came from the way the classes felt the same no matter what I played and I think that is largely due to the way the classes are balanced using the A/E/D/U format. I still like 4e, but I’ve taken on the attitude that it’s a great pickup game when I don’t have the time to really invest in character development or encounter design.

I picked up Pathfinder during the beta and followed it from start to release of the final. I volunteered for GenCon last year so also got an early start on the final rules. I really like the majority of changes Paizo did. CMB/CMD is a big step up as mentioned over the previous rules surrounding combat maneuvers. Could it be better, I’m sure it could but it’s going to take time to figure it out. The classes are definitely more balanced and designed to really persuade the players to sticking with the same class in order to maintain effectiveness. Pathfinder’s shortcoming is that it doesn’t really help multi-classing as much, but I think that’s because now as I mentioned the focus is more on staying in a given class. Most of the spells have been balanced, but there are some that still could be improved.

I’m with Remathilis on wanting more of a cross breed. I really like how 4e handles defenses and hit points along with a couple other points. As for other fixes well there’s a big trend right now of products popping up offering alternative rules to improve 3.5 OGL rules. If you haven’t looked at Trailblazer I recommend it as there are some interesting ideas inside for improving 3.5/Pathfinder. Another product you might want to take a look at is Fencing & Firearms from Spes Magna Games which is a free download when you sign up for their newsletter. Then there’s variant systems that already exist and are popping up, i.e. Conan and e20. I’m hopeful that down the road the best rules from all the variant OGL products will get incorporated so that we’ll eventually see it all in one product meeting the majority’s desire. The problem is no matter how fine tuned the system might get there will always be players who will condescend, making the quest for a perfect game a losing battle of revisions. Some point along the way we have to decide which system best fits “our individual” needs and house rule the rest, calling it good and stop buying every book that comes out. I just don’t know if I’m at that point yet.

 

[Pig Champion]

I don't understand why people want perfection out of their system. Seems to me, no matter what is done, there'll always be somebody, somewhere whom finds a hole or fault in any given system...But that's neither here nor there.

I'd say go with what feels good for you. I've played both systems pretty extensively and recently just got rid of my 4e books. For me, I started playing DnD when I was very young with my brothers and although it was 2E I had no idea what was going on.

After a long break, I entered my mid-teens and got over the party scenario happening around me and decided to pick up DnD again. This was 3.5 and thus all my fondest memories are of this system. So when it came to choose a system to stick with, I went with the one that felt like DnD to me.

4E has a lot to offer but when I was playing it, the whole time it lacked that 3.5 DnD feel which is the system I grew up with.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe, if D&D 3.x is the System you grew up with, Pathfinder is the right choice for you.

I personally did grow up with ADnD 2nd edition. But my DM Career startet with 3.0 as there was only PHB available. I am still deciding if I can make 4e work. There is so much goodness in it, because it has a bit of the second edition feel in it, but also balance. But if I can´t make it work as smooth as i could with 3.x, I will go back to either PF or 3.5.

So, whatever you do, you do it right.

 

[Starfox]

My first look at Pathfinder didn't impress me. Too little, too late was my first impression.

After playing a bit of 4E and finding many, many points where revisions and polish could benefit the game, the idea of playing a game that has had 2 major overhauls is pretty attractive.

But there are so many games systems these days, and peer pressure is a major factor in deciding want to play. I want to try Eclipse Phase, but my players don't seem very interested. There is also Mutants & Masterminds and True 20. Pathfinder (and 4E, and M&M etc) is just one of many contenders after WotC lost the absolute lead they had with 3.5.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I'd also like to accept Pathfinder as a changing 3.5 enough for me to want to try it again. In my case it's not really nostalgia as an excuse to break out my collection of 3.5 books that I never got a chance to use.

What stops me is that I've had time to identify my preferred style, and that style does not enjoy how the 3.5 D&D system handles resource management. The way the system assumes numbers of equivalent encounters per day such that a GM has to calculate their adventures rather than simply creating them as it feels right. And most of all the way class abilities have amounts that assume frequent yet not constant use so that they can never feel like once-an-emergency trump cards or just another tool to make your own. It's interesting to note that the latter is probably one of the reasons I never got interested in 4e.

It's just still not my game.

 

[brewdus]

Been playing since 1e, loved 3.5 but it started getting a little ridiculous with all the splat books. Played 4e for a few months, thought it was good, but it just was kinda blah. went back to 3.5. Started a Pathfinder campaign when the core book came out and haven't looked back! Pathfinder is freakin' awesome! The changes they made to 3.5 were just enough to make it flow smoother. But not too much, so it's easy to use old 3.5 stuff with little to no conversion!

 

[Starbuck_II]

So when I saw that they had fixed the system in all the ways that mattered to me I was excited and confused. Excited, because everything that I had hated about the system had been fixed. The Paladin is awesomesauce, the eternal destroyer of evil that he was always supposed to be. The game looks more balanced, with encounter building actually looking easier. The entire game looks overhauled and expanded. Could it be? Had my nostalgic dream been done?

Niot to train on your parade, but did you happen to read every word on Paladin section?
You no longer fall for major acts anymore (gross violations): now you fall for any violation.
So they upped the Pallys power, but made the restrictions worse.