D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 E, older D&D and Pathfinder. What do D&D vets think of pathfinder

[SuperGnome]

Love these threads...

Played since late summer of '87.
Basic D&D from Red to Gold box
2nd Ed
3.x
4.x

I won't go on about Basic since it's exactly that.

2e - I played it enough that combat got old. It fits (probably established) my idea of what a fantasy RPG should be and reinforced what I always thought cool fantasy to be. It was easier to envision combat since you didn't have to think in squares and what not. It was nice and brutal.

3e - Really opened up the game as far as player options, but the rules for everything approach made it a bit of a labor to run. All the conditions were different, there were all these special circumstances, and playing only once or twice a month it was hard for me to keep it all in meh noggin. It reinforced canon, cleaned up a lot of ambiguous mess with class progression, kept the spirit of D&D.

4e - Character generation bores me to no end, and I used to really enjoy that. They just made up new crap to throw in for whiz-bang effect. They threw in rules, ideas and powers that just don't make sense. It's easier to run, but it's D&D only in brand. It's almost nothing like the game I love. That being said, my players liked it for the powers so I've been running a 4e game since it came out. For me, it's just sort of soulless. I can't get the same feeling out of it. I'll say it again, it's just a different game. If you consider 4e, you might as well consider every other non-WotC \ TSR game out there.

Pathfinder - Read through the final beta pdf. It did clean up some things, and if I could get my players to run something non 4e, that's the way I'd go. I wish I could stick to 3.5 as the feel is exactly what I love about D&D, but power creep from supplements kind of caused some issues.

 

[Malachei]

I have been playing since the D&D Basic Set and started to run my first campaign with 1st ed. AD&D rules. My group and I have been moving on to 2nd ed., and then to 3rd edition. With 3rd edition's first appearance, my group stopped working out houserules for the first time since the early years. With 3.5 that changed, as there were two alternatives now, and we had discussions on what rule would be best. We did not switch to 3.5, because we felt many changes were no improvements. Right now, we're playing a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 rules.

We haven't been moving on to 4th edition, for many reasons, one being that we're in the middle of campaigns, another that we're quite satisfied with the current rules and houserules -- from what little I saw, at the moment, 4th ed. does not seem an improvement for our game, and probably a decline, flavor-wise. But this is just our game, and I respect everyone who plays otherwise (no intention to start a 4th edition discussion here - just stating where we're coming from).

Looking at Pathfinder, I see a lot of things I like, and some issues.

One thing I like is the strengthening of the core classes, with removal of 'dead' levels. I think 3.x drowned us in a plethora of options (PrCs, Feats, and so on). I'm not saying options are a bad thing per se, but we eventually got a bit tired of it, and maybe wanted some more fluff and less crunch. The balancing of the classes is a good thing, although I feel there's some issues already in it: While I like that specialist wizards can learn opposed school spells at double cost, I'm not sure if that is a good decision, balance-wise. First, the universalist seems to be a bad choice, now. Second, some (especially the smaller) schools have a very small number of exceptionally useful spells that you simply need. That's fine, because you can give up schools now, that you would have never given up before, but I'm not sure whether this is good for the balance of schools. I'm not sure I like how the races are balanced, too.

Also, I did not see the need for upgrading weak hit dice classes to 1d6. It seems that the strategy is to attract players by making characters stronger (as WotC has been using). This follows the 3.5 trend of downgrading the effect of offensive spells. Back in 1st edition (with its many balance issues), a fireball was a dangerous weapon, but SODs were pretty weak at higher levels due to the save progression. 3.0 did a good job in strengthening SOD spells, but had DC-issues (mainly due to PrCs with 3.0 Spell Power). 3.5 changed several SODs into high-damage-dealing spells, something I did not like. With more hit points for everyone, thus, all types of offensive spells got weaker. I would have hoped for Pathfinder to take a more 'classic' road, here. I still fail to see why forcecage should provide a reflex save (its a seventh spell spell, after all). All of this comes down to the issues that no single ruleset is the accepted norm, now -- at least for the people I know and play with.

For sure, I love that 3.X is not dead. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about the D&D community remaining divided, as I recall the heated, unpleasant debates between 3.X and 4th edition (as well as 3.0 vs. 3.5 earlier). And the third edition camp is now stretched over three rulesets. Many people I know are using material from both 3.0 and 3.5 -- with Pathfinder, we can have three reference points for a ruling, now. Whether this is a good thing or not, every group can decide.

The question for me is, can Pathfinder become the univeral canon for the 3rd edition camp? As time passes, and the new rules expand, probably more people jump on board, and it can become the de facto standard. But only time will tell.

 

[IronWolf]

For sure, I love that 3.X is not dead. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about the D&D community remaining divided, as I recall the heated, unpleasant debates between 3.X and 4th edition (as well as 3.0 vs. 3.5 earlier). And the third edition camp is now stretched over three rulesets. Many people I know are using material from both 3.0 and 3.5 -- with Pathfinder, we can have three reference points for a ruling, now. Whether this is a good thing or not, every group can decide.

I doubt the 3.x versus 4e split will disappear anytime soon. The systems are different enough that likely if one fits your play style the other very well might not. There are of course people in the middle that would happily play either, but I think there are enough people at either end that the split won't disappear.

The question for me is, can Pathfinder become the univeral canon for the 3rd edition camp? As time passes, and the new rules expand, probably more people jump on board, and it can become the de facto standard. But only time will tell.

I think as time continues more people that prefer the 3.x era of rules will slowly adopt Pathfinder as their rule set of choice. As (or if) the 3.5 books become harder to find groups that tend to be forming anew or have an influx of new players will likely go Pathfinder just for the easy availability of print material and an actively maintained rule set.

Now groups that have been together for quite sometime might stick with the 3.x rules for longer as they likely already own the materials they need, are happy enough with the rule set to stick with it and possibly not as likely to feel the desire to seek out an in-print rule set.

So I suspect over time the the fans of the 3.x ruleset will simply drift to the Pathfinder rules. Also if nothing else for the sheer fact that trying to play a hybrid between 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder is likely to be more overhead than many groups want to maintain.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I doubt the 3.x versus 4e split will disappear anytime soon. The systems are different enough that likely if one fits your play style the other very well might not. There are of course people in the middle that would happily play either, but I think there are enough people at either end that the split won't disappear.

There is also the aspect of one version or the other fitting your preferred DMing style better.

Personally, I'll play any version of D&D. Despite design decisions I profoundly disagree with, 4Ed still a well-designed game...but I'll NEVER run it.

 

[IronWolf]

There is also the aspect of one version or the other fitting your preferred DMing style better.

True as well. With a fair amount invested to a game as a DM I can certainly see the system that fits your style being the preferred one.