Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[ahayford]

For someone with years of DnD/RPG experience, sure.

 

[technoextreme]

No, actually I just described 'tengubushi' an archetype build from my In the Company of Tengu supplement for Pathfinder, which is a mobility based fighter. My build is full BAB, low skill points, lots of feats, no tricks - doesn't sound like a rogue at all, at least not a PF one.

Actually you did a remarkable job of describing the Arena Fighter in 4E. So much so that I thought you were partially trolling until the description went off the rails with wears no armor.

 

[Pentius]

Exactly as my previous post. If I want to play a swashbuckler, I do. I build a base fighter, then I look to armor choices, weapon choices, where to put my stats and finish the build. I don't go looking at the martial striker reference, as that is unnecessary for me to build a swashbuckler.

The title fighter covers it all, all in one place under fighter, not in a different section under defender, or martial striker or whatever. On top of that those different references are completely different books and I have to buy 2 or 3 books just to get the concept of fighter. And IMO, that should be in ONE players handbook under fighter, not a dozen different books - this alone proves that the role concept is too complicated. You need an entire different book just to look at building a fighter differently.

In Pathfinder I don't need to do that. Granted 'archetypes' didn't show up until APG, so I do need both the Core and the APG, but that's it.

I think your last line in the quoted post, describes what I say above - and I agree, yes, I don't like it.

I don't 'get' this. There's no Martial Striker Reference Section. There's no Defender Chapter. Under Fighter, there's a line telling you that Fighters were designed to be tough melee guys. And think that's the difference in how I see it from how you see it. When I see "Defender" or "Controller" I don't think of it as a pigeon holing, or hard coding what a class can do. I see it as the designers saying, "So, hey, here is what we had in mind when designing this, just so you know where we're coming from."

And here, let me lay out an example situation.

You want to make a swashbuckler type character. So you take a Fighter, you give him high dexterity and lighter or no armor. You give him, let's say a rapier. You maybe look at some fiddly bits that give more mobility or whatever. Maybe another player suggests that a Rogue or Ranger might be a better class to make a swashbuckler from. But Fighter can do it. You might find it beneficial to look to some splat book for more fiddly bits, but you can build it out of the PHB. The splat book's fiddly bits are just icing on the cake.


So, here's the thing. That example, that could be 3.x or 4e, either one. Probably Pathfinder, too, but I don't really know Pathfinder very well. I know PF doesn't have a lot of splat, but you mentioned the core, and the APG. I know a book called Ultimate Combat is out there somewhere, I imagine it has at least one fiddly bit a swashbuckler might like.

 

[gamerprinter]

Actually you did a remarkable job of describing the Arena Fighter in 4E. So much so that I thought you were partially trolling until the description went off the rails with wears no armor.

I don't troll. I don't care enough to want to pick an edition fight with somebody. I'd rather everyone just to play the game that gives them the most fun - and leave it at that.

So, here's the thing. That example, that could be 3.x or 4e, either one. Probably Pathfinder, too, but I don't really know Pathfinder very well. I know PF doesn't have a lot of splat, but you mentioned the core, and the APG. I know a book called Ultimate Combat is out there somewhere, I imagine it has at least one fiddly bit a swashbuckler might like.

Actually this describes me perfectly in that, I know very little about 4e, so when I talk about the 'martial defender' section, book or whatever - I don't know 4e, this is all just wild guessing on my part. So excuse me for not describing how to build a specifically built fighter in 4e the correct way, I don't know 4e, and am unlikely to ever look - no offense, its just not my game.

For Pathfinder I only have the Core, the APG, Bestiary 1 and 2, and the GMG - I don't have those other books, or the setting material, or any of the APs. I'm a home-brewer, I've always been, and I lack the income to buy everything that Paizo releases, so I only buy what I need within a limited budget.

That said, I am now a freelance writer/cartographer for Paizo, and they gave me the GMG for free (PDF only) so I could better create a gazetteer for Jade Regent Adventure Path. So I will do my best to get Paizo to send me more free stuff, so I can use them for my own development projects and personal games.

 

[ahayford]

Actually this describes me perfectly in that, I know very little about 4e, so when I talk about the 'martial defender' section, book or whatever - I don't know 4e, this is all just wild guessing on my part. So excuse me for not describing how to build a specifically built fighter in 4e the correct way, I don't know 4e, and am unlikely to ever look - no offense, its just not my game.

If you don't know how 4e classes work, why are you even arguing about them. And an even better question, how do you know its not your game?

 

[Pentius]

Actually this describes me perfectly in that, I know very little about 4e, so when I talk about the 'martial defender' section, book or whatever - I don't know 4e, this is all just wild guessing on my part. So excuse me for not describing how to build a specifically built fighter in 4e the correct way, I don't know 4e, and am unlikely to ever look - no offense, its just not my game.

For Pathfinder I only have the Core, the APG, Bestiary 1 and 2, and the GMG - I don't have those other books, or the setting material, or any of the APs. I'm a home-brewer, I've always been, and I lack the income to buy everything that Paizo releases, so I only buy what I need within a limited budget.

That said, I am now a freelance writer/cartographer for Paizo, and they gave me the GMG for free (PDF only) so I could better create a gazetteer for Jade Regent Adventure Path. So I will do my best to get Paizo to send me more free stuff, so I can use them for my own development projects and personal games.

Well then, you know a little more now. There are a lot of differences between 4e and Pathfinder, or 4e and 3.x, but this isn't really one of them. You can take a Fighter, which is stereotypically a heavy armored guy that toughs it up in melee, and make him into a lighter-armored, more mobile guy. You give up some stuff, you get some stuff in return. Splat books will tend to provide fiddly bits that help, but so does homebrewing. Possibly someone in your group or online will tell you all about how you're doing it wrong, but such is the way of things.

 

[gamerprinter]

If you don't know how 4e classes work, why are you even arguing about them. And an even better question, how do you know its not your game?

Well, I really wasn't trying to describe how 4e classes work, rather I was trying to explain how 'roles' as described by 4e people is an unnecessary complication to 3x/PF and earlier people (like me.)

Regarding 4e. One of my players bought the 4e Gift Box, so we rolled up characters (once over a year ago), ran a couple of combat trials, checked out some of the mechanics. Overall, everyone in my group went 'meh' when we saw it in play. I have since sat in, not playing, but watching 2 nights of 4e in play at the local game store.

So I'm not completely uninitiated regarding 4e, but not enough to argue for or against it or pick on line by line rules issues. It just offered no interest to me or our group. Know this to be true, 4e is not my game - I've looked.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Well, I really wasn't trying to describe how 4e classes work, rather I was trying to explain how 'roles' as described by 4e people is an unnecessary complication to 3x/PF and earlier people (like me.)

Regarding 4e. One of my players bought the 4e Gift Box, so we rolled up characters (once over a year ago), ran a couple of combat trials, checked out some of the mechanics. Overall, everyone in my group went 'meh' when we saw it in play. I have since sat in, not playing, but watching 2 nights of 4e in play at the local game store.

So I'm not completely uninitiated regarding 4e, but not enough to argue for or against it or pick on line by line rules issues. It just offered no interest to me or our group. Know this to be true, 4e is not my game - I've looked.

And this is what creates the great divide in the Edition Wars (TM) - neither of the entrenched sides really understands wow the other side could enjoy that game.

I know that I don't - I played two games of 4e, and both bogged down in an almost unending combat, two hours to kill an ogre and a mess of goblins in one of them.

Then I hear folks yelling about how 4e is so much better than 3.X and I have no idea how?!

They are obviously having fun, but the game left me cold, when push came to shove. (Literally - it seemed like half the things taking place just pushed opponents around, to little effect.) The other battle was worse, with a single, not all that powerful, dragon.

It made me want to find Mr. Mearles and beat him with a clock.

And I have no doubt that the folks on the other side of that divide have as much difficulty understanding why I like PF better.

Meanwhile, the folks down in the valley, who like both games, are looking up and asking 'what's up with them?' Bastiches!

The Auld Grump

 

[Pentius]

Well, I really wasn't trying to describe how 4e classes work, rather I was trying to explain how 'roles' as described by 4e people is an unnecessary complication to 3x/PF and earlier people (like me.)

It's only unnecessary if you already know what you're doing. I totally understand if you decide to play a Cleric, you don't want someone taking five minutes trying to explain the concept of a Leader. We're old hats, we know how to play Clerics. We'll worship a god, we'll heal and buff some people. The dead start walking around, we'll be the guy you call. We get it.

But they're helpful if you don't know what you're doing. For example, it took me a long time, and actually playing one, to get a handle on what the 3.5 Bard was supposed to be able to do. I'm still not entirely confident that I know. The answers I got were along the lines of "You'll be a great fifth man!" and "You can do a little bit of everything!" which didn't help me, really. But in 4e, I can look at the Bard, and it says right at the start, "Leader". Well, I get the concept of a Leader, so now when I'm reading the bard mechanic stuff, I can get a better handle on how it was meant to be used, and where the Bard is intended to fit into the party. I get what WotC was trying to do. That's all the roles are, really. Just shorthand for "We designed this class to be good at X."

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm curious, what do you people arguing about roles think of the 3.5 Bard or the 4E Warlock?