Pathfinder 1E Playtest Report- Pathfinder die hards

[Reef]

This board definitely seems to be one of the more reasonable ones though. There are critics for sure, but there's much less frothing at the mouth. More constructive criticism. Plus, there seems to be a lot more actual play-testing here, as opposed to armchair analysis based on reading alone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am a 4e DM and player right now. And I do see similarities. And I do see good elements from 4e in the design. And if you think about, that I DMed 3.x over its complete lifespan, I think I can say, that those rules don´t resemble 3.x at all. Monsters maybe. d20, yes.

But it is more 2nd edition with 4e mechanics than 3rd edition... 4e players calling it 3rd don´t know what they are speaking about.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Btw, I am wondering about the title of the post: "Pathfinder die hards". I don't feel it's explained in the post itself, so I would appreciate if you talked a little about that.

 

[LordBill]

I am happy, as I prefer 1E/2E/4E over 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder.

I hope it remains as far from 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder as possible.

 

[Lwaxy]

And I hope it stays as close to 3.5/PF as possible But I'm happy, too, so it will hopefully work out for all in the end.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am a 4e DM and player right now. And I do see similarities. And I do see good elements from 4e in the design. And if you think about, that I DMed 3.x over its complete lifespan, I think I can say, that those rules don´t resemble 3.x at all. Monsters maybe. d20, yes.

But it is more 2nd edition with 4e mechanics than 3rd edition... 4e players calling it 3rd don´t know what they are speaking about.

This is how I feel as well. I prefer 2nd and 4th to 3rd, and I like 5th so far. It seems to me that many of the things that people identify with 3isms are things that every edition other than 4th had (vancian, gritty-low-level, etc) and other 3isms are things that 4th also had (d20 mechanic, etc).

The only thing "missing" from 4th is tactical combat maneuvers, and that will and should (obviously, IMO) come as an optional module later.

BTW the fighter is perfectly fine as he is.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Btw, I am wondering about the title of the post: "Pathfinder die hards". I don't feel it's explained in the post itself, so I would appreciate if you talked a little about that.

Its simply a reference to the preference of my group. We have been playing pathfinder exclusively for a few years now. I wanted people to read a playtest knowing it involved pathfinder players.

 

[erleni]

The only thing "missing" from 4th is tactical combat maneuvers, and that will and should (obviously, IMO) come as an optional module later.

BTW the fighter is perfectly fine as he is.

I feel more or less the same. Maybe I'd like a little bit more non-magical healing in combat too, but I'll feel fine if they'll give it to the warlord.

 

[renau1g]

I love 4e, but I'm getting a bit burnt out with all the actions (immediate actions, interrupts, minor attack actions ,etc) that take a ton of time to resolve. Especially all the fiddly minor bonuses to add up. I'm liking what I'm reading with 5e and I hope to be able to playtest it (when WotC allows online playtesting).

 

[Gundark]

If you'd just read the WotC boards, you'd think 5e was a disaster. A lot of really loud disgruntled 4e fans on there.

You know it depends on the edition. When 4e was being rolled out this place got bad, to the point I stopped right up until the last half of last year. This go around this place is the better of the forums.