D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?

[Smoss]

For *me*, I liked 3e but I wanted something better. I liked SW Saga and that got me excited for 4e hoping that was its direction. When I saw and played 4e, I was disappointed - It was not the game that *I* wanted to play. Some of the ideas were nice, but it did not fit. 3e felt too complex and "buggy" to me after playing Saga.

So I made my own system. Then I got a hold of Pathfinder. It seemed no better than 3e for complexity of play and bookkeeping. Plus it tried to solve problems like grapple and such in a way that did not seem elegant enough for *me*. Probably mostly because I had used my rules enough by then that other systems just didn't meet up to my needs.

Heck, I just played in a game of SW Saga yesterday after making a character the day before. Character creation and play all felt clunky to me now compared to how *I* like it. So I have evolved away from the standard games to rules I like better. Originally based on those rules...

Of course, this is just me and what *I* like. Others certainly have their own tastes.
-------------------------------------
Smoss
Doulairen

 

[Remathilis]

Pathfinder GM here, so I'm not the focus, but I almost was...

After a bitter falling out with 4e, I switched back to 3.5 because I assumed Pathfinder was a Powergamer's paradise; upgrade hp, more powerz for every class, at-will cantrips, more feats, etc.

I ended up persuaded by the PRD to buy the core-books, and have so far been satisfied with a number of changes made; Skills are a breeze to do, characters are convinced to stay in their base class instead of jumping from class to class gaining "kewl powerz", and I find CMB/D easier to adjudicate on the fly (except for grapple, nothing can save grapple IMHO).

HOWEVER

It still contains a number of inherent problems unique to 3.X, and in some cases made them worse. Their Bestiary is great, but it forces a lot of "do it yourself" monster creation (and fiddling with monsters is one of my greatest loathings about 3e), PCs still gain power too quickly so that high-level D&D is a mess, and most of my time as a DM is spent trying to balance reasonable challenges (so as to avoid insta-TPK or cakewalks) rather than focusing on cool plot elements and settings. Finally, even though fighters are a LOT better, a well-trained caster still rocks them 6 ways to Sunday.

That said, I'm playing Pathfinder because its the best available option for me.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'm glad I started the thread. I was starting to have some doubt wondering if others were seeing the same things I saw.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I play 4E and 3.5 currently.

But I didn ot buy into Pathfinder at all.

I have looked over the Pathfinder SRD in some detail, and I see a lot of changes, but none of them jump out and say, "Look, I fixed XXX or YYY or ZZZ." Some parts are a bit cleaned up (though just from looking, not playing) but not a lot.

Plus, add in 8 years of experience with 3.5, even with its problems, and I am comfortable with it, and still have a lot of nooks and crannies I have not explored.

Add in my hardly ever seeing games run by pathfinder rules in he online spaces I visit, and thee is no reason for me to switch over.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I´m a 4e DM, too, but i have several project i still want to run in 3.5. I want to run both a 3.5 and a 4e version of Red Hand of Doom. I want to (finally!) run City of the Spider Queen (yes i know its 3.0). I want to run several Dungeon Adventures in 3.5.

I looked into Pathfinder thinking to find the following:
- 3.5 with minor changes, created to keep 3.5 in print and allow Paizo to continue producing modules.
- No changes where only minor things were problematic. Heavy lifting where the core problems lay and lots of work was needed.

Reading it, i felt like i imagine some people felt reading 4e. Stranger in a strange land. Fly skill? This is the new fighter? Replacing subsystems with subsystems? Anyway, i really didn´t ask for alot: reign in casters somewhat, make DMing easier and so on.

I think, in the end what convinced me to stay with 3.5 for my 3.x needs was that i like my things tidy. That is, i like it when i can say: X and Y and Z got heavily changed, and nothing else. I didn´t get that. 3.5 needed some well-placed tactical nukes, not guerilla fighting all over the place. Ruleswise.

 

[BryonD]

Fly skill?

Heh.
That's a good one also.

It is an interesting idea and they have kinda a good point for why it exists.
But, it REALLY wasn't something the game was lacking and then it just wasn't well implemented.

shrug.

Again, that is the beauty of "3.5 Thrives" though, Defenestration of FLY? Check.

 

[BryonD]

I'm glad I started the thread. I was starting to have some doubt wondering if others were seeing the same things I saw.

It is pointing out to me how much my game is 3E with PF house rules rather than the other way around.

But, their campaign setting and story STILL rocks.

There is more solid design innovation in the 188 pages of Trailblazer than in everything I own for PF.

But, the PF imagination present in both the vast fluff as well as in the mechanics which focus on the spirit of the idea they are modeling are worth the price many times over.

Best of all worlds.

 

[Goblyn]

My group wasn't wowed by 4e and I'm the only one who'd ever heard of Pathfinder. Even so, we'd likely stay with 3.5 because we all know it quite well and any neat ideas from other games are easy to implement.

Some such:

-skill challenges from 4e
-action points from d20 modern
-unlimited 0-level spells for those who can cast them(this one is funny because although they can be used infinitely, I rarely see PCs use them more often than would have been granted in the original RAW anyway) from pathfinder

Basically, my answer to "Why not move on?" is that no game yet has given us enough as a reason to. We're likely in the process of becoming grognards.

 

[ruemere]

Interesting especially since I ran two higher level encounters last night under Pathfinder. And it struck me that PF monsters are much better designed that their 3.5 counterparts... or to put it like this: the organization of information (statblocks) and special abilities work better.

Case in point: 3.5 Glabrezu vs Pathfinder Glabrezu

Both statblocks are legible and user friendly, however when running both creatures, 3.5 attacks and abilities begin to require additional operations (like recalculating primary vs secondary attacks) to greater extent than Pathfinder (only Pathfinder version of Power attack is a bit awkward, as it requires knowledge of actual BAB). Also, as soon as Glabrezu makes that grab, the 3.5 begins to heave and puff under stress (3.5? light weapons? grab performed with a single set of extremities?) whereas under Pathfinder it is simpler (either full grab and standard action to maintain or appropriate penalty and only a pair of extremities engaged).

I agree that changes made by Pathfinder may be considered controversial or require work to adapt, however changes take place with each edition switch, and so producing statements to the effect "I did not like the changes" is hardly a way to give an informed opinion.

So, here is a request - if you have a reason to stay with 3.5, please provide us with some details. Thanks to the additional information, it will be easier to evaluate posts.
Of course, all of this is a subject to common sense - Trailblazer may be indeed superior in terms of progress, but it would be hardly feasible to quote it here

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Pathfinder user here. I was looking for a system with more material and support... and fewer issues (see example above). Also, OGL and 3rd party support were absolutely necessary (some of the designers whose work I use, are working in different companies, and I would absolutely loathe to leave them behind).

 

[Crothian]

So, here is a request - if you have a reason to stay with 3.5, please provide us with some details.

3.5 works for us. It has its problems but I was not looking to change the system. Also, we game in the same home brew setting that has been going since 95. So, there had been multiple campaigns worth of info with my as a DM all done in 3e.

When I looked at both Pathinder and 4e I saw stuff I liked and stuff I did not. But I haven't seen anything that makes me really want to make the jump.

That being set I own pretty much every 4e book WotC has produced and I'm close to owning all the Pathfinder books as well. I don't hate the games and if someone else was to run one and invite me to a game I'd happily play. In fact that's what's happening here shortly.