D&D 4E Reconsidering Pathfinder over 4E

[Celtavian]

That's an unusual playstyle.

Parties offer a greater challenge. Monsters usually can't keep up with a party with four actions and four minds working against save for perhaps dragons.

No, I don't. When I design NPCs, I go for simplicity, plus style.

It's very important that I challenge my players. I spend a great deal of time planning enemies to challenge them from the spell tactics, to feat schemes, to magic item optimization.

I didn't say it gave me problems, I said it took more time. Typically, I had about five books in front of me prepping for a 3.5 game, now I usually have three: the core book, the Bestiary, and maybe one other source I'm converting. Plus, all the new feats are presented in the core feat chains, which makes it really easy to prep NPCs (see above).

My prep has been even easier now that Pathfinder put their entire ruleset online on a single document. I usually have one browser open with several different tabs I click through.

Even then, it wasn't much of a problem... until you wanted to advance a monster who may or may not have spent points on cross-class skills, and whose skills may or may not include an ACP penalty for a shield.

Much simpler now. I didn't much like using the table for different monster type advancement with base guidelines for how to do so. Now I use either the advanced template or I make up the monster as I see fit. Makes it much easier on me.

Fighters do not get sneak attack. They rarely have the luxury of sinking most of their ability score bonuses into a single stat (Dex). So, yes, the fighter's first attack is basically an auto-hit in most battles, at high levels... giving them parity with the wizard, the invisible rogue, and the buffed Cleric. Another way to look at would be that using the new Power Attack, their BAB remains the same while their damage goes up. The fighter has always been the prince of melee control, but their damage has tended to lag. That has been remedied. And while I would argue the fighter has always been effective, having his own bonuses creates more of an appearance of being self-sufficient. It also helps the party, by helping melee and ranged numbers be closer to expected ranges for opponents, even when buffs fail or are unavailable.

To me, increasing a fighter's damage to where they can actually do some serious damage to the giant, rather than just tie up the giant's AoOs, is not a radical increase in power, it's just a courtesy to the guy with the flaming two-handed sword who wants to feel good about themselves as they are smacking the bad guys.

For certain Dex builds, the Pathfinder fighter might be decidedly superior, but otherwise I think you are talking about a 25 to 30% increase in damage, even taking into account situation advantages.

I find sneak attack situationally useful and easy for intelligent monsters/NPCs to counter, especially at higher levels where monsters and NPCs can see through invisiblity fairly easy. And most wizards don't like to waste their spell slots casting on the rogue.

Even if the rogue buys greater invisibility scrolls and uses them with Use Magic Device, the fighter has most likely already engaged a creature. And by the time the rogue moves into position for his first sneak attack, the fighter has the creature almost dead or dead.

I have no problem with what they did with the figther. I don't agree that the fighter isn't amped up though. 20 to 30% extra damage is most certainly amped up. And the ability to stun (very powerful) and cause serious negative effects to enemies with criticals is very powerful. An average high level hasted fighter gets 5 attacks per round. Chances are he is going to crit with one or more every round causing some type of effect that if optimized (usually stun, daze, or blind) is going to pretty much make the fight hopeless for whatever he is fighting.

I've been in a heated debate with some others on this board over fighter vs. wizard power. In my own experience, fighter-types have ruined more of my carefully planned encounters with crits than wizards or clerics.

I can plan for wizards or clerics. Magic in general always has a counter or high spell resistance can generally throw off a wizard or cleric.

Nothing really stops a lucky crit. A lucky crit with a greataxe or other x3 weapon is nigh encounter ending for all but the toughest monsters. With the fighter boosted, he is a crit machine. I have yet to run a fighter at lvl 20. But further boosting his crit ability looks like it will be a nightmare.

 

[gamerprinter]

No where in her post did the OP indicate she hated 3x, just that she enjoyed 4e. The truth of matter, if you didn't like 3x, you won't like Pathfinder, since PF is very much 3x, just better.

If you didn't like 3x, there's no point in trying PF.

While PF was 'designed' for backwards compatibility, I've discovered after 1.5 years of playing PF since the Beta, that you don't really want to touch the legacy stuff from 3.5. I incorporated much of 3.5 splats in my first year of running PF games. Now, I eschew all 3.5 splats as garbage and am playing PF Core and APG only. It's that much better than all 1000 splats put together.

You are free to use legacy splats if you want. But with any time spent on PF, you'll probably discover that 3.5 only holds things back for you. This is especially true of PrC, which though they exist in PF, nobody in my gaming group will ever take a PrC again - no need for it, the base classes are good enough (especially with APG archetypes in mind.)

I've only got one player multi-classing, and he already regrets it, all the other players are single class, and through their whole history in 3x, they were never single class at any time.

All these differences from 3x are derived on how much different PF is to 3x, yet it still plays very much like 3.5. Just IMO, doing it much better.

GP

 

[concerro]

No where in her post did the OP indicate she hated 3x, just that she enjoyed 4e. The truth of matter, if you didn't like 3x, you won't like Pathfinder, since PF is very much 3x, just better.

If you didn't like 3x, there's no point in trying PF.

While PF was 'designed' for backwards compatibility, I've discovered after 1.5 years of playing PF since the Beta, that you don't really want to touch the legacy stuff from 3.5. I incorporated much of 3.5 splats in my first year of running PF games. Now, I eschew all 3.5 splats as garbage and am playing PF Core and APG only. It's that much better than all 1000 splats put together.

You are free to use legacy splats if you want. But with any time spent on PF, you'll probably discover that 3.5 only holds things back for you. This is especially true of PrC, which though they exist in PF, nobody in my gaming group will ever take a PrC again - no need for it, the base classes are good enough (especially with APG archetypes in mind.)

I've only got one player multi-classing, and he already regrets it, all the other players are single class, and through their whole history in 3x, they were never single class at any time.

All these differences from 3x are derived on how much different PF is to 3x, yet it still plays very much like 3.5. Just IMO, doing it much better.

GP

I disagree that all legacy stuff is bad. I do think a lot of it was never playtested, and one should be careful as to what they bring over. The 3.5 stuff still allows for some interesting stuff that Paizo has yet to cover.

Mutliclassing is not what it was in 3.5 so I do agree with that. PF was designed to make you not want to multiclass.

 

[gamerprinter]

I disagree that all legacy stuff is bad. I do think a lot of it was never playtested, and one should be careful as to what they bring over. The 3.5 stuff still allows for some interesting stuff that Paizo has yet to cover.

Mutliclassing is not what it was in 3.5 so I do agree with that. PF was designed to make you not want to multiclass.

I'm not saying its all 'bad' just that you don't need it. I have to clarify myself, by saying I have access to about 100 splats, which means I never got them all, so there might be something that I've never seen, that might still be applicable. Just my experience with the splats I have at hand, 3.5 stuff just gets in the way of good time playing PF.

Its not necessarily bad, just completely unnecessary.

Whatever PF doesn't have as far as class builds go, I create a new class from scratch based off PF and never look at its 3.5 predecessor.

I enjoyed 3x, when there was no PF, now I only play PF...

GP

 

[Icyshadowlord]

More overly subjective stuff I see here, which (in my view) is almost deliberately trying to make 3.x look bad and trying to make Pathfinder look FAR BETTER THAN IT IS. I have tried both, and I have my own opinions, but I choose NOT to shove them in people's face. I will refer to my earlier post on how this situation should be approached, but please: Stop worshipping editions. I like 3.x, but I don't make shrines to it or shove it in people's face while dismissing the other editions.

 

[concerro]

More overly subjective stuff I see here, which (in my view) is almost deliberately trying to make 3.x look bad and trying to make Pathfinder look FAR BETTER THAN IT IS. I have tried both, and I have my own opinions, but I choose NOT to shove them in people's face. I will refer to my earlier post on how this situation should be approached, but please: Stop worshipping editions. I like 3.x, but I don't make shrines to it or shove it in people's face while dismissing the other editions.

I agree. That is why I had to reply to GP's post. The first one made it sound like 3.x was garbage.

I've discovered after 1.5 years of playing PF since the Beta, that you don't really want to touch the legacy stuff from 3.5. I incorporated much of 3.5 splats in my first year of running PF games. Now, I eschew all 3.5 splats as garbage and am playing PF Core and APG only. It's that much better than all 1000 splats put together.

He posted after that, but his second post sounds nothing like the first one. 3.x while not perfect is a fine system. In any event I would suggest the OP ignore blanket statements.

@ the OP: The PRD is online for free. Try it out. It won't cost any money to do a test drive.
You might like it, you might not. Either way do what is best for your group.

 

[billd91]

More overly subjective stuff I see here, which (in my view) is almost deliberately trying to make 3.x look bad and trying to make Pathfinder look FAR BETTER THAN IT IS. I have tried both, and I have my own opinions, but I choose NOT to shove them in people's face. I will refer to my earlier post on how this situation should be approached, but please: Stop worshipping editions. I like 3.x, but I don't make shrines to it or shove it in people's face while dismissing the other editions.

I cannot help but think you're reading a completely different thread than I am. There's no shoving opinions in anybody's face here. The OP asked for comments on using PF as an alternative to 3x. Is there any reason people should avoid tell him they think PF is an improvement if that's how they feel? Comments of that nature are a direct answer to the OP. How can that be shoving opinions in anybody's face?

 

[Icyshadowlord]

Probably because he presented himself in a manner that made me (and concerro) feel like he was slamming 3.x down in an unfair manner. I myself GAVE an answer to the OP already (this is the second time I have to say about that now...), and then I noticed what gamerprinter had written and reacted accordingly. I am not dismissing him as being automatically wrong, but I would like for him to present less biased posts concerning this subject. Also, I've noticed that when 3.5 players present actual numbers and stats that point out some flaws or show that something in Pathfinder isn't what it seemed to be at first glance, people start to rage at the 3.5 players about "theorycrafting" and other such things, which turns the whole thing into an edition war.

 

[IronWolf]

Probably because he presented himself in a manner that made me (and concerro) feel like he was slamming 3.x down in an unfair manner. I myself GAVE an answer to the OP already (this is the second time I have to say about that now...), and then I noticed what gamerprinter had written and reacted accordingly. I am not dismissing him as being automatically wrong, but I would like for him to present less biased posts concerning this subject. Also, I've noticed that when 3.5 players present actual numbers and stats that point out some flaws or show that something in Pathfinder isn't what it seemed to be at first glance, people start to rage at the 3.5 players about "theorycrafting" and other such things, which turns the whole thing into an edition war.

I think gameprinter clarified his post pretty well. He simply said he tried combining the two systems in the beginning and has since moved to only using PF materials in his games. He pretty much stated how his game goes these days and why. He continues in the same post to say that one *can* use the 3.5 materials in the game, he just chooses not to.

I think gameprinter is far from trying to turn this thread into an edition war of any sort.

 

[gamerprinter]

More overly subjective stuff I see here, which (in my view) is almost deliberately trying to make 3.x look bad and trying to make Pathfinder look FAR BETTER THAN IT IS. I have tried both, and I have my own opinions, but I choose NOT to shove them in people's face. I will refer to my earlier post on how this situation should be approached, but please: Stop worshipping editions. I like 3.x, but I don't make shrines to it or shove it in people's face while dismissing the other editions.

But the OP already knows 3x, she's not asking whether 3x is a good game, she's asking whether its worth pursuing Pathfinder. So trying to convince her that 3x is bad, is not what I am doing at all. I am trying to convince her that mixing 3x with PF is unnecessary.

There's no edition worship here (not from me), my love of Pathfinder is no different than my love of 1e, 2e, nor 3x when I was playing those games. And no doubt, no different than the OP's love for 4e (which I've never played so have no opinion about).

I'm trying to help her discover the best part of Pathfinder, and after 1.5 years of playing it, the best part is playing PF alone and not mixed with 3x. I'm trying to help her avoid 12 months of trying to mix the two, when she's better off playing just PF.