• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

My piazo problmes Forked Thread: Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

Burrito Al Pastor

First Post
I love the style of your fluff and I like Golarion. Man, I wish you would do a 4e line of adventures....

This. WOTC's game design is on the ball for 4e, but they couldn't write a good module if their lives depended on it.

I have the first three Pathfinders adventure paths in their entirety, and I'll probably never use them, because I have no interest in running 3rd edition games and I'm not crazy enough to try and convert them to 4e. Golarion is stuck in a weird limbo in my gaming world, between "awesome" and "unplayable".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

catsclaw227

First Post
I have the first three Pathfinders adventure paths in their entirety, and I'll probably never use them, because I have no interest in running 3rd edition games and I'm not crazy enough to try and convert them to 4e. Golarion is stuck in a weird limbo in my gaming world, between "awesome" and "unplayable".
This is the same situation I am in, except I canceled my Pathfinder subscription about two adventures into Second Darkness.

Golarion, stuck between awesome and unplayable. Sad for me and my group.
 


catsclaw227

First Post
Maybe, with what's been hinted at about the GSL, we'll see that Paizo/Necro relationship produce the Books of Awesome* stuff for us poor, poor, starved 4e DMs. :p



*not to be confused with the Books of Pretty Cool, But Not Quite There Yet.
 

Okay, I guess this particular thread makes me realize how tough the game companies have it. The OP states that the paizo run was when he let his subscrition to the magazines lapse. For me, it was the first time I had resubscribed in a decade. I fondly remembered the definitive articles on the nine hells that were in dragon back in its "golden days", and their (paizo's) run really brought back that kind of flavor and use into the magazines for me. Their modules were more interesting and flavorful, by and large, as well. Heck even the maps they started dropping into the series with nothing more than some flavor text got used in my games. I loved them.

When they announced their pathfinder series I was orginally not pleased. I wanted them doing 4e material. After the release of 4e I found myself wanting to like it (still do) but being torn between what was lost and what was gained.

I've been DMing their first pathfinder AP, using the modules as writen, but allowing my players to use the pathfinder beta rules I purchased. So far it has been a blast and there have been absolutely no issues. The group is composed of a druid, sorceress, swordsage, and rogue/swordsage. I'll be honest, the swordsage dropped in with no issues what so ever.

I personally loath the warlock, but if I had a player that wanted to try one I'd allow it with no issues. I believe it would take maybe ten minutes to change around some skills and hit dice to make it viable in a pathfinder campaign. I've seen a lot of folks complaining about lack of backward compatibility, but to me, it's about as compatible as it can get without making it the exact same game. Which it really can't, and shouldn't be. It needs to move forwards.

As for fixing grapple, trip, disarm, and such, their solution has so far worked out fine for my group. We've had no issue, everybody now remembers how the stupid thing works without having to look it up each time. I've had one player bullrush a demon into a pit of fire, and there was much cheering when it went in. I've succesfully used grapple, and failed grapple several times on them as well. Pretty much par for the course with my group. But each time we haven't had to stop play and look up the rules. We just rolled and went. That to me is fixed. Could a more elegant solution be had. I'm sure it could be, but the current rule works, and is a wonderful improvment in mechanics form the old rule.

Are their products free of issues? No. I've had some issues with the latest AP, and a few things I didn't like in some of their other AP's as well. But unless I'm writing the darn thing that's what I expect. Heck I've been house ruling DnD for the last 20 years, I think continuing to house rules the few things I don't like isn't a problem.

I still wish the GSL would be "fixed" so they, and necromancer, would produce some 4e product. I really want to like 4e, but tWOTC's current products just seem to lack the soul that the paizo products seem to have in spades for me at the moment. So for now I'm enjoying the products paizo's producing and wishing that 4e had just a little more of their soul, and a little les mechanical polish. That's a trade off that could really work for me.

-Ashrum
 

glass

(he, him)
Lets say I want to play a Elan warlock/Swordmage...I need to make it up almost intirely...becuse all of the PHB stuff is diffrent...infact I might as well throw out my 3.5 book and just use the Pathfinder stuff
Neither Elans nor Swordsages are changed in any way by Pathfinder. You hypothetical character would differ in that he'd have a couple more feats, and depending on what feats he picks they might work a little deifferently, but otherwise he'd be just the same.

In fact, he'd it in a little better as fighters and barbarians are better balanced compares with swordsages and warblades now. Warlocks remain weak, but then you can't balance against everything if everything is not balanced in the first place.


glass.
 

glass

(he, him)
And this leads to another question. When you start (eventually) making splat books with classes and races, won't these make the older 3.5 library obsolete as well? I assume you aren't stopping at the one book and thats it.
I'm not James Jocobs*, but I'll have a stab at answering it: I think it will only make options in 3.x splats obsolete if those options are not very good to start with.

I can see if Paizo come out with a really cools Samurai class people might be disinclined to play either of WotC's versions. Of course very few people are inclined to play them because they are a bit pants. OTOH, I can't see the popularity of the Swordsage class being greatly diminished whatever Paizo brings out.

EDIT: D'oh! Scooped.

BTW, on question of my own: How the hell is Paizo supposed to be pronounced?


glass.


(* Although I have one of those names).
 
Last edited:



bouncyhead

Explorer
I've been DMing their first pathfinder AP, using the modules as writen, but allowing my players to use the pathfinder beta rules I purchased. So far it has been a blast and there have been absolutely no issues....
-Ashrum

That's pretty much my experience exactly. I'm running Rise of the Runelords (written for 3.5) for my group (we all bought 4e core books and played for about 4 months but have reverted). I had lost my 3.5 PHB and decided to pick up a print copy of PFBeta. I let the guys create their PCs using 3.5 though (all core classes) and at the table we have a mix of 3.5 and PF Beta books. The players are gradually switching their PCs over to the PF versions and if in doubt, the PF way trumps the 3.5 way when it comes to a ruling. Had no issues with compatibility whatsoever.

Quite like the new maneuver mechanic (certainly simpler), the channel energy rules free up the cleric to actually cast her spell picks and keeps play rolling for longer between rests (as do the hit points bumps for classes). Keen to see what stays and what goes (and what's new) in the full release.

The question of 'why bother?' has come up on this thread frequently. It's a good question. Speaking for my people, I would have to say it's about feeling that you are playing a living, supported game with a future without having to switch to 4e. Good luck to both editions and all who sail in them.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top