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

[DaveMage]

Oh, I'm not trying to say the game hasn't involved tactics for many editions now. It certainly has. Adding this extra layer of definition is what messes with me. And is a layer I don't really want to have to explain to new players when I could focus on explaining classes and such. Again - I admittedly said it is a personal bias and not a system defect per se.

I have the same "bias".

 

[brewdus]

To bring this thread back on topic, I think Pathfinder adheres more closely to the tropes and traditions most people associate with D&D than 4e does.

 

[Pentius]

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

As interesting as this tangent might be, it crosses my line for off-topicness. Call me up if you start a new thread for it. Possibly not in the Pathfinder area, though, unless we want to include the PF Bard.

To bring this thread back on topic, I think Pathfinder adheres more closely to the tropes and traditions most people associate with D&D than 4e does.

I think that depends on what tropes and traditions most people associate with D&D. However, PF clearly does resonate with many longtime D&D fans better than 4e does. Which was kinda the entire point of its creation, as I recall.

 

[billd91]

I think that depends on what tropes and traditions most people associate with D&D. However, PF clearly does resonate with many longtime D&D fans better than 4e does. Which was kinda the entire point of its creation, as I recall.

I don't know if I'd say it was the entire point of its creation. The main point according to Paizo was to keep a version of D&D compatible with 3.5 in print, since 3.5 was going out of print in favor of 4e.

That said, if anyone felt that 3.5 did a better job of resonating with traditional D&D tropes than 4e, PF was pretty much going to be the natural successor, deviating from 3.5 by a lot less than 4e.

 

[brewdus]

I think that depends on what tropes and traditions most people associate with D&D. However, PF clearly does resonate with many longtime D&D fans better than 4e does. Which was kinda the entire point of its creation, as I recall.

Such tropes as Vancian magic, the way alignment works, ect. .

 

[cyderak]

cyderak, if there was one person on these forums who I could imagine dancing on D&D's grave if it ever failed, it would be you.

Your opinion isn't going to cheese anyone off. On the other hand, using tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic names for those who prefer a different game than you ("DEFENDERS OF THE 4TH EDITION UNIVERSE") probably will. If you were actually trying to avoid ticking anyone off, you would have left the name-calling out of it.

You got me there........(((Digs and prepares a grave for D&D while wearing a grim reaper costume)))).......

Like I said.......4th ed. isn't for me.......I think it sucks.....which is why I play PATHFINDER.......not because the world is a better setting, not because the story fluff is better.........ITS BECAUSE ITS RPG GAME SYSTEM IS 95% IDENTICAL TO D&D 3.5......the little tweaks they enacted made it better in fact.

I actually loved the forgotten realms game setting. And when they completely changed that I lost interest completely.

 

[brewdus]

You got me there........(((Digs and prepares a grave for D&D while wearing a grim reaper costume)))).......

Like I said.......4th ed. isn't for me.......I think it sucks.....which is why I play PATHFINDER.......not because the world is a better setting, not because the story fluff is better.........ITS BECAUSE ITS RPG GAME SYSTEM IS 95% IDENTICAL TO D&D 3.5......the little tweaks they enacted made it better in fact.

I actually loved the forgotten realms game setting. And when they completely changed that I lost interest completely.

The Forgotten Realms was a great setting until they screwed it up for 4e, but thankfully Paizo gave us Golarian as a worthy successor to both the Realms and Greyhawk!

 

[Summer-Knight925]

4e would be a great system

if it didn't call itself D&D

while I try to live by the ideaology that "D&D is what you make it" (meaning D&D is not a brandname but a state of mind) I feel asthough having rule changes shoved down my throat (aside from making me sick) made me sick (did I mention it made me sick?)

however, Gygax and Arneson's orginal system involved spells being PER DAY and not at will/encounter/daily, it involved fighter-types fighting, clerics healing and turning undead and magic-users using magic

orginal OD&D didn't have the thief in the orginal men & magic book, it wasn't until...I want to say Greyhawk, don't hold me to it though...so as for rules/roles/rolls (like the 3 R's?) we can easily break changes down into the three sections.

(this is using the jump between 3.x and 4e)
Rules: Combat rules were similar, as were hit points and saves and math remained universal (seemingly) however the addition of powers seemed more like MTG than spells from the spells section. The core rules say one thing, but the powers allow you to break them in some way, albeit not a harsh way that ruins the game, enough to where it seems like Magic.

Roles: the characters changed with the rules, and while you still needed a rogue, they removed the need for a cleric, the cleric (at least with me) holds a certain amount of pride to it, if a player willingly chooses the cleric, they either have a great build or a great idea for one. (as a side note, if a cleric saves you from death, buy him a drink [non-alcoholic for you youngsters out there]). As for the names of them, it felt more like building a squad of marines than an adventuring party.

Rolls: You still roll to hit, roll for checks, all that, dice remain the same, you still have DCs, but rob me of rolling hit points and my own saves? Same with the 'recharge' ability, I enjoyed using the d4, it allowed me as DM to create tactics, and realisticly, a dragon would know when its breath is coming back, just like you feel when you're out of breath and recovering your breath, at least 'realistically' it would know.

So that's my view, I'm guessing there will be many people who respond in vain. Go for it, I'm like honey badger these days.

 

[GreyLord]

I think it comes down to this statement which, admittedly, only holds true 70-80% of the time:

Those who have played older editions, or started before 4E was introduced prefer PF to 4E. Those who started since 4E began prefer 4E to PF

You really think 70-80% of the people that played older editions of D&D prefer Pathfinder to 4e?

I have my doubts. Tons of players play 4e. They can't all be new to the genre.

I still have 8 more pages to ford through before reading the rest of this thread, but I couldn't let this pass.

First...80-90% of the people who played older editions PRE-3e could care less. They played it during the fad years and have gone on.

Second, many of those who DID play and enjoyed AD&D DID NOT consider 3.X in any way or form D&D. They probably are happy to let Pathfinder take up the mantle...but they wouldn't consider it D&D either...many may still be offended.

So what you are left with in the statement are that 70-80% of those who played 3.X D&D and loved it...etc...etc...etc...

I don't know. 3.X went more the Rolemaster route and appeased more those who would go towards the skill sets rather than the class routes.

Pathfinder further refined the game...and I consider it a true heir to the 3.X line of games...or D20 if you want.

4e has the draw that there are DEFINED archtypes. You can't just jump from class to class. You don't just go up a level and decide one day...oh...I'll be a Doctor now...even though that should take me 4 years of premed and 4 years of medical school...I just need to take a level. Then the next day...ah...I went up another level...I'll be a preist now without getting that 4 year degree and advanced degrees in divinity for another few years of education.

It sticks with the idea that each class actually has some difficulty in obtaining it and training for it which is more in line with the original AD&D.

On the other hand, the powers system in 4e is so drastically different as to boggle an old schooler's mind. That probably is the thing that sets it apart so strongly from older editions. Furthermore, there is that outward appearance that the creators of 4e tried to make it so balanced that all the classes eventually have very similar abilities once you level them up for a while (not that this is so...as I said, the outward appearance). That makes it more for a mesh instead of the archtype that you want.

3.X in that light, though classes aren't as strictly defined in who has to be what and remain that way...seems to retain class Flavor a LOT better from an outward appearance. With Pathfinder as the heir apparant...and making the class strictures even more defined, I'd say that the archtypes can be more strongly appealing to the old time player.

Does that offend enough people from both groups? So I'm the most hated person on ENworld.

I may be inclined to say a LARGE number of those who enjoyed 3.X would see Pathfinder more as D&D than 4e...at least in the heart of it.

Can I call Pathfinder, 3.5E, and 2E Diablo wannabees then?

Something many 3.X players don't want to admit...WotC/TSR had the Diablo license when they created 3e. They actually created the Diablo game first for 2.5e (in that time period...when the seeds of feats, movement in squares, and skill sets came about with the Player's Options books). They also released another Diablo version for 3e.

Ironically their classes didn't replicate the ones from the game as much as they could have...BUT...a LOT of the feats and skills they included in 2.5...and even more so 3e reflect an influence either from D&D on Diablo...or Diablo on D&D (whirlwind being the one of the more blatant ripoffs in 3e from Diablo...though whirlwind was actually something available in 2.5 as well if I recall correctly).

Yes, in my mind...Diablo I, and Diablo 2 had a heavy impact on 3e...but not quite as much as Rolemaster.

IN that same light, I'd say there are many elements of MMORPGs, such as WoW that 4e has based items off of. I think that is even more blatant in many regards than what 3e took from the Diablo series.

This accusation got me curious, so I'm going to talk to any girls I know who game and link them a few Pathfinder iconic females, maybe that armoured one with the window and tell them that finding something wrong with that makes you a Puritan.

I'll be back in an hour to report on my findings!

On a sillier note...

This http://images.wikia.com/pathfinder/images/0/0b/Amiri.jpg and this

http://images.wikia.com/pathfinder/images/c/c5/Inquisitor_sketch.jpg

are women?

Yes...I guess they are...scary women too!!!

What I meen is, 3e did not follow the same role philosophy that 4e does, and thus trying to apply 4e's roles system onto 3e isn't really constructive. 3E's biggest drawback for me is the relative imbalance between the utility of casters/everyone else.

True, though I don't think 3e's biggest drawback is that at all for me...I do agree that 3e definately does NOT follow the saem role philosophy that 4e does...not does Pathfinder.

Ah I see, you picked the pictures that would most support your case, completely ignoring the paladin. Lets include Kyra, Lini, Meresiel, Reiko, Seelah

http://images.wikia.com/pathfinder/images/5/52/Lini.jpg

That's a woman? I thought that was a male druid with it's humanoid plant companion!!

In the last two years I have introduced 36 people to Pathfinder - half of them who had never played RPGs before, and a quarter who had been playing 4e. Eight were thirteen years old or younger.

The way to bring in new blood, to any game, is to invite people to play. Trust me, new blood is being invited, and the Pathfinder Beginner's Box should help invite even more folks into the fold.

I really wish that the 4e starter box had done better, locally at least. I may not like 4e, but I do want to see the hobby grow. If both beginners boxes were bringing in tons of new players then I would be more than happy. There is plenty of room for both PF and that other game there, you know the one....

The Auld Grump

I too am excited about the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, I wish they would just hurry up and get it here.

Somewhere, a mathematics major is having an aneurysm.

No...then again, not a mathematic major...but I do have close to an aneurysm whenever someone states THAC0 was hard to grasp and they had a hard time with it...I always say they must have flunked 3rd grade math...but in truth they start teaching subtraction in 1st grade!!!

Unfortunatley my wife is one who also states she can't comprehend THAC0!

Lucky for her I didn't marry her for her brains or that WOULD CAUSE an aneurysm!!!

This.

I don't deny the simplicity of the word: "defender", "striker", etc - but I see this as an unnecessary complication. I don't think in terms of "controller", I think in terms of specific adventuring jobs, like 'rogue'.

Also I don't see limitations of this class just does this one thing - striking or what have you. Again, I mentioned on one of my previous posts that you can't pigeon hole a given PC's role to any one thing. PCs tend to switch up what they might do in a given combat from encounter to encounter. They don't slot themselves into the ideal combat role.

I'm not trying to knock you 4e gamers and the words you use to describe your combat roles, but its all 'pretty Greek to me.'

GP

I find them confusing at times too. Sometimes I'm still not entirely clear what a controller is. I'm an old guy though, I understand the roles are there so that the MMORPG kids can easily understand what the roles are supposed to do...in otherwords it speaks their language. It could also be people have just been feeding me a bunch of huey instead.

As interesting as this tangent might be, it crosses my line for off-topicness. Call me up if you start a new thread for it. Possibly not in the Pathfinder area, though, unless we want to include the PF Bard.



I think that depends on what tropes and traditions most people associate with D&D. However, PF clearly does resonate with many longtime D&D fans better than 4e does. Which was kinda the entire point of its creation, as I recall.

As I already stated, 90% of longtime D&D fans don't even consider 3.X or Pathfinder OR 4e D&D. They consider D&D (meaning the original BX/BECM or AD&D) as D&D. They played it in their youth, and now they dont' anymore. Many have lost, donated away the books or have them gathering dust somewhere in their attic.

It's MORE correct tos ay PF resonates with many 3.X fans...which it does spectacularly.

I don't know if I'd say it was the entire point of its creation. The main point according to Paizo was to keep a version of D&D compatible with 3.5 in print, since 3.5 was going out of print in favor of 4e.

That said, if anyone felt that 3.5 did a better job of resonating with traditional D&D tropes than 4e, PF was pretty much going to be the natural successor, deviating from 3.5 by a lot less than 4e.

100% agree with this statement.

4e would be a great system

if it didn't call itself D&D

I felt the same way about 3.X overall. In the end I think Gygax may have as well. At least I think he was unenamored of how heavy handed it had turned out. I think He was still glad about the RPG'ers playing it and enjoying RPing.

I think he may have turned once or twice in his grave with 4e being called D&D. (okay, here I go being sacriligious)...who knows...maybe it was the thought of what 4e was bringing that brought him to an early grave (yes, morbid humor, I think gygax may actually have laughed politely at that one...politely I said...not that he would have actually laughed). I think he may have actually liked PF better. That said, just like he was glad about RPG'ers playing 3.X, he'd be happy with RPG'ers playing 4e and enjoying RPing. I think he loved the OGL most of all the modern ideas that came about. I think he preferred making his OWN systems above any of them.

Arneson...don't know...he seemed to go with the flow of everything and run the systems called D&D at the time. They even came out with a Blackmoor 4e campaign set.

That's probably why I'm so much happier with the system being called Pathfinder instead of D&D these days. I think Pathfinder is an outstanding system...I just didn't like it trying to replace the older versions of AD&D and D&D and calling itself such.

And now that I've offended everyone and everybody, I'll probably be lambasted...especially for summarizing half this thread with my responses in one long post.

 

[Ettin]

I felt the same way about 3.X overall. In the end I think Gygax may have as well. At least I think he was unenamored of how heavy handed it had turned out. I think He was still glad about the RPG'ers playing it and enjoying RPing.

Gygax hated 3.X, so yeah, invoking his name to say 3.X is amazing is kind of weird. Still, that's not a reason to claim it's "not D&D" or terrible, right?



There are other reasons for that! Oh snap! Here come the (insert other edition here) warriors, I suggest you don't try to start a fight with me just for posting my non-provocative opinions, I'm such a victim these days, etc.

I kid, I kid.