D&D 4E [4E Players, mainly] Ever thought of defecting to Pathfinder?

[thewok]

I wish wizards could just hire all the people who write adventures for Pathfinder. That's what would really make me happy.

I often see this sentiment, or something like it.

"Pathfinder has some amazing adventure paths!"

I think it's an interesting thing to examine, too, because I think the phenomenon is indicative of the real difference between Wizards of the Coast and Paizo.

Paizo's claim to fame before Pathfinder was the creation of content for D&D. That was their thing. Sure, wizards put out adventures, but Paizo was doing Dungeon and Dragon every month.

Wizards seems to be very focused on mechanics. They want the game to run smoothly. Their adventures are (mostly) panned by people, with a few exceptions, like The Slaying Stone.

I have no interest in a 3.5-style game, including Pathfinder (which is an even more complicated 3E). I like 4E, and I like Saga. But I would really like to see more content for D&D that is more than just chains of encounters to kill. That is where Paizo shines, I think: making content for the game, rather than the game itself.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm still confused how they are able to do it, when I understood the original OGL was something WotC could stop whenever they wanted. Does anyone know?

I think you have the d20 license confused with the OGL. The OGL makes it so that everything released under it is out there and usable, forever. The d20 license was what WotC could pull or change.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm still confused how they are able to do it, when I understood the original OGL was something WotC could stop whenever they wanted. Does anyone know?

Yep. You understood wrong. Once the OGL was out of the bag, it stayed out of the bag. There was no ability to pull it, nullify it, or make it go away. Anything published as Open Game Content remains Open Game Content forever.

 

[Festivus]

All of the following is my opinion. I play both 4E and Pathfinder, I only DM 4E now, but I DMed a campaign from 1-20 in 3.5.

If you disliked 3.5, Pathfinder is more of it. Yes, some rules are streamlined but the minutia is all still there as well as the DM workload for prep time. Honestly, take a look at something like Trailblazer which I think did a better job of streamlining the system.

The Pathfinder fluff is awesome, I really like the setting, and the stories are all excellent that I have played or read. Any of those could easily be converted to 4E and run with that engine. I agree with others who said they would love to see the Paizo writers do some GOOD stories for 4e.

Personally, I am sticking with 4E but stopped buying anything much from WoTC of late because a) they aren't producing what I want, or b) they cancelled it. I'll probably take a look at future systems that come out, but I am not real interested in DMing anything even remotely close to 3.5 in terms of complexity and prep time.

 

[Osgood]

I love 4E and believe it to be a huge step forward. I took a look at PF when it first came out because I loved what Paizo did with Dungeon in particular, but I was unimpressed. I realized I don't miss 3.x in the slightest. I could no more switch to Pathfinder than I could go back to my old '78 Pinto.

While I don't care for the PF system, I think it is a good thing that there is some real competition for D&D. I think that can really drive WotC to put out better products eventually... I think a lot of what is going on right now revolves around shifting strategies as a response to have a true contender after so long of being the undisputed champ.

I have this image in my head of D&D training at the gym, running though Philly, and boxing raw beef to the tune of an 80's power ballad. Unfortunately (other than a passing resemblance) Bill Slavicsek is no Burgess Meredith....

 

[SlyDoubt]

I've run 4E and I like how easy it is to get going. As a DM I think 90% of us would mechanically say 4E is preferred over PF. But I've never run things as the book states it exactly or always using grids and minis. This is my main problem with 4E. I feel a lot more restricted as a DM to that specific format; one myself and players never used too often except when necessary.

3.x/PF is a complex load of stuff. But imho it's more of a toolbox than a system like 4E feels. 4E feels rigid. It's very streamlined and simple to understand but gosh is it rigid. It really depends on the players and what they expect. If they're going to take everything to the limit and are rule nazis PF is going to be difficult unless everyone is extremely well versed in it. Conversely if your players don't care as much for that end of things I think 3.x/PF does a better job than 4e. I feel 4e lacks any bit of reality, it feels wholly gamey to me and my players. We all began with 3E at the same time and played it for many years so that may be why.

Honestly though both systems are fine as both player and DM. I really don't agree with the constant '3.x/PF is fine to play but terrible to DM'. Well, that's your fault honestly. You made it more difficult than it had to be. We're talking about pen and paper RPGs here and honestly the only things that matter are player/DM trust when it comes to rules. The rules are there to make sense of action/encounters, not to get in the way of them. If they do, PF is pretty understandable once you get the underlining mechanics and you can do things on the spot (I suppose this takes experience...).

For a group of new players and DM I'd say either is completely fine. For a new DM and experienced players PF will be difficult if the players focus on mechanics. 4E could still turn out fine though due to the rigidness of the system, the DM can't really go wrong except for making uninteresting encounters (takes experience to change that). Conversely I don't find 4E that interesting for me as an experienced 3.x/PF DM. I feel restricted.

Both rule and really it's just up to your type of DM/group. Pathfinder could be much quicker or 10x slower depending. It can be quicker because often there's less real world conversion (in my experience) to game mechanics. Or the conversion is what you'd probably rule on the fly. 4E in comparison requires more thought in figuring out how to stat things up suddenly due to how powers can interact and confuse things (for me).

Just presenting an alternative to the usual "I'd play 3.x/PF but not DM" statement.

 

[Solvarn]

Now to you. Have you thought seriously about "defecting" to Pathfinder or another edition of D&D or game altogether? (I have also considered Savage Worlds or Star Wars Saga or numerous other games, but my group and I are all a bit hooked on D&D, at least at the moment). Have you been questioning WotC and thought of switching to a different game in order to support a company that you respect more? What is your experience?

We've been mulling it over, 4E fixed some things that annoyed me about 3.5.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

3.x/PF is a complex load of stuff. But imho it's more of a toolbox than a system like 4E feels. 4E feels rigid. It's very streamlined and simple to understand but gosh is it rigid. It really depends on the players and what they expect. If they're going to take everything to the limit and are rule nazis PF is going to be difficult unless everyone is extremely well versed in it. Conversely if your players don't care as much for that end of things I think 3.x/PF does a better job than 4e. I feel 4e lacks any bit of reality, it feels wholly gamey to me and my players. We all began with 3E at the same time and played it for many years so that may be why.

It is interesting. I find 4e feels more like a toolbox. Not in the sense of tinkering with the rules, though it has a lot of internal transparency so that isn't hard to do either. More in the sense of designing material for it. Ritual magic is a great hook to hang all kinds of things on frex. Monsters are very modular. Other encounter design elements are pretty well defined and easy to tweak.

Honestly though both systems are fine as both player and DM. I really don't agree with the constant '3.x/PF is fine to play but terrible to DM'. Well, that's your fault honestly. You made it more difficult than it had to be. We're talking about pen and paper RPGs here and honestly the only things that matter are player/DM trust when it comes to rules. The rules are there to make sense of action/encounters, not to get in the way of them. If they do, PF is pretty understandable once you get the underlining mechanics and you can do things on the spot (I suppose this takes experience...).

I find the ostensibly locked in aspects of 4e to be the same though. Magic items seem a bit too tame for you, just go off the rails and make some that are cool in your view. Making them work OK system-wise shouldn't be an issue, the system is simple and the DM is in charge there.

Conversely I don't find 4E that interesting for me as an experienced 3.x/PF DM. I feel restricted.

Yeah, it is just one of those things the DM needs to get over in 4e's case. Lots of stuff is pretty conservatively set up by default, but it is easy enough to just color outside the lines once you realize that nothing bad will happen. The more I play the more fast and loose it gets around here. Admittedly with any rules system you feel obliged to play by the book, but with 4e at least it isn't really necessary. Probably helps to have players that just want to play a fun game and don't really give a lick what the rules say.

 

[SlyDoubt]

previous post

You're absolutely right on all accounts. It's just a different perspective ultimately and if you come from 3.x PF takes that perspective and adds qualities a lot of us wanted to see. Qualities many later books in the 3.5 cycle touched on like issues with classes being interesting outside of feat/spell selection.

I'm not sure if I'm the oddball out as I don't exactly play with other 3.x DMs/players. I've mostly had the same group give or take a few people since the 3E adventure box set came out. I've played 3.x, PF, SW Revised, SW Saga, d20 Modern, WHFRP and 4E. In general firmly in the D20/3.x mold started by 3E. I've grown into the system and so it's rather comfy for me. I've made it my own over the past 10 years. Some things will always be cumbersome just by existing. They require a degree of complication to make any sense at all.

I can definitely see how 4E is toolbox to some. To me it isn't though because I find things less 'believable' or relatable to real world scenarios. The scaling nature of everything in the game throws me off personally. Not that 3.x/PF doesn't scale but it scales less related simply to abstract 'level' and more to power. That's how it feels for me at least. My players know some things are more dangerous than others because of what they are inherently, not because the specific version is more dangerous than the average example. I find 4E more linear and less sandbox friendly just due to it's design. That doesn't mean it can't be done I just don't feel it fits as well.

Certainly agree about the players part. My players aren't into rules. They don't min-max and really are more interested in making characters they enjoy using and playing in scenarios that are exciting.

I find having a bunch of bonuses that can be thrown around easier to manage rules wise than powers. I absolutely love the power structure. I think it's wonderful and it reminds me of when Magic changed from 'summon creature' to 'creature - x'. It was huge and so simple and opened up a tremendous amount of space to explore when it comes to design/mechanics. But it also makes things less immediately malleable to me. It's slightly more opaque in the moment, during the encounter, than the raw mechanics of 3.x/PF. Outside of that though I do think it's wonderful and was really excited by Essentials. Classes with non-power abilities other than feats/skills really got me re-interested in what felt like the blandness of 4E.

I'm very disappointed to see the class compendium cancelled. That was something I was really excited for, more essentialsish style takes on PHB classes, clarifications on some things never fully explained between essentials/core. I realize I'm apparently weird for liking books but gosh darnit I want it in printed and bound!

I'm supposed to start a new campaign soon. For the first time doing it online. We'll likely use maptools as it seems to cover everything but system and setting are still up in the air. Based on the people involved it'll likely be PF and I'm cool with that. It's just ironic that now that I'm playing in a digital game the thing I've shunned (DDI) would be most useful. Oh well. I'll continue waiting to see how 4E develops. I've been waiting since not long after it came out for books I felt were worth buying. Essentials was what I wanted 4E to be so it's difficult seeing it flounder around. Hopefully they turn things around, for us and for them as employees.

 

[LostSoul]

The scaling nature of everything in the game throws me off personally.

I don't think the scaling nature of everything in the game is an inherent feature of 4E design; it's more of a DM/adventure building technique. I think, though, that some things may break down if you use individual monsters outside of a certain level band.