Pathfinder RPG vs Book of Experimental Might as 4E Alternative

[Deimodius]

I haven't seen a thread about this yet, maybe no one cares.

I haven't had a chance to read either yet (just DLed PF-RPG Alpha, and will likely buy BoEM soon), but for those who have read both (not sure how many of you there actually are) or at least _looked_ at both...

1. Is one of them better than the other as an alternative to 4E (that let's you keep using your 3.5 books)

2. Is it possible to merge both of them into a good 4E alternative?

Please note: this thread is NOT about whether either of these alternatives will fail, or kill 4E, or "do just fine", I'm only interested in a comparison and contrast of the two as the two most recent "official" 3.5 compatible alternatives to 4E.

 

[jodyjohnson]

1. Is one of them better than the other as an alternative to 4E (that let's you keep using your 3.5 books)

I think Pathfinder will be stronger provided your definition of 'keep using your 3.5 books' excludes SC, MIC, PHB II, Complete Mage, Complete Champion, Dungeonscape, Bo9S, etc. All of which make our current 3.5 game as fun as it is now.

 

[Stalker0]

As far as continuing your 3.5 adventures, pathfinder comes with a lot more than just the rules, but all the pathfinder adventures likely to follow.

As far pushing 3.5 towards a 4e direction without actually going 4e, I think BOEM has some more radical ideas (like 20 levels of spells) compared to pathfinder.

 

[GlassJaw]

Neither address the core "problems" with 3ed though - power curve, encounter design/balance, save or die spells/effects, the "minute" adventuring day, etc.

Basically, they are both the "easy stuff" of a 3.75 redesign, not the stuff that actually requires doing math.

They are both essentially more "crunch" books, no different than Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I will need to see more before I decide. Pathfinder has the backing I am looking for but BoEM is by Monte and I tend to respect his work more than others as being what the designer wanted.

 

[Psion]

Vs? Combine them and make VOLTRON editions.

Seriously, if I were Paizo, I would scrutinize the BoExM for potential items to import.

Neither address the core "problems" with 3ed though - power curve, encounter design/balance, save or die spells/effects, the "minute" adventuring day, etc.

And for that, I can only be thankful. Some of what you label core problems here are things that vary from non-problem/GM responsibility (15 minute adventuring day) to features (save or die) to me.

Considering that if people saw all the same problems that 4e hopefuls do there wouldn't be a market for this, I would think twice about taking the 4e list of problems as gospel and applying it to pathfinder.

 

[Papa-DRB]

BoEM vs. Paizo 3P

I have both. Some comparisons....

BoEM
1 feat every level - too much power
20 spell levels, doing away with 0 - good
new spells - good
"disciplines" for Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Wizard - *GREAT*
old spells change - mixed (ie. good and bad)
"forgot" about Bard/Sorcerer while changing spell stuff - bad

Paizo 3P (Alpha 1)
Updated classes - good
Fighter/Rogue new abilities - good
Skills - mixed
Feats - mostly good
Spell changes - mixed, but more good than bad

What I am thinking of doing, is taking the disciplines from BoEM for Clerics, Druids and Wizards (and do something for Bard, Sorcerer) and work it into the Paizo 3P, but I need to see the rest of the Alpha's first. Lots of work, and I'll put it into PCGen lst format so my guys won't have to worry about having it handy.

-- david
Papa-DRB

 

[dm4hire]

Monte excluded Bard/Sorcerer because he'd already covered alternatives for them in Book of Eldritch Might so there was not reason to rehash them if you want to alter them then buy that book. The magic system presented for both classes are very different and would allow for a flavor of their own.

 

[ShadowX]

Vs? Combine them and make VOLTRON editions.

Seriously, if I were Paizo, I would scrutinize the BoExM for potential items to import.



And for that, I can only be thankful. Some of what you label core problems here are things that vary from non-problem/GM responsibility (15 minute adventuring day) to features (save or die.)

Considering that if people saw all the same problems that 4e hopefuls do there wouldn't be a market for this, I would think twice about taking the 4e list of problems as gospel and applying it to pathfinder.

Except that through both BoEM and Pathfinder one can see the problems addressed and the design goals and that they match so very well with the concerns of the 4e design team. For a specific counter-example, look at the BoExM where Monte flat out states that he finds save or die spells less than compelling and tried to alter them. Or how similarly Pathfinder handles skills compared to SW Saga or 4e. I think the "canon" for 3rd edition problems is pretty well established and thus, Pathfinder and BoExM are just less drastic attmepts at fixing them compared to Fourth Edition. Unfortunately, like many others I feel that the major problems (which is to in no way imply that 3e is broken) can't be rectified without an overhaul.

As for the products themselves, as someone aptly put it, they remind me more of splatbooks than revisions of the core rules. And I must disagree that BoExM takes a larger leap than Pathfinder. I was sorely disappointed with BoExM as it suggested a rather common house rule (more feats) and then turned many class features into feat trees. Then you have Monte splitting up spells into more spell levels, a tactic that just increase bookkeeping and has little payoff. At no point did anything strike me as innovative and overall it felt like very shoddy design work or in many cases non-work.

Pathfinder strikes me as a more legitimate stab at correcting the deficiencies of 3e and I could see myself actually using some of this for any future 3e game I play as I would any other splatbook. I think even the little content released for Pathfinder has some issues, but I am interested in how it shapes up. Unlike Monte, Paizo is tackling harder and more worthy issues such as the nonuniformity of certain systems like trip, grapple, turn undead, etc. and I respect them for the attempt. Maybe through this open beta the combined might of the D&D community can change 3e for the better.

 

[Umbran]

This thread is certainly not about 4e, so I've moved it into General.