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

[Nemesis Destiny]

As a die hard 4e fan, I have considered it because of the group of friends and family that I play with. We have all played hundreds of game systems in our day, and while I like 4e best of all, ultimately it doesn't matter what I play. I like telling stories with my friends. Stories that we all enjoy. Stories told in blood and spells. Doesn't matter if i am making a full attack and a 5' step, or blowing a daily power and shifting 1. It's all the same in the end. Fun killing things and taking their stuff.

If we did go back to 3.x, pathfinder would definately be it. A vast improvement over the last gen. Better Melee, Spellcasters that get some at-wills and enough tricks to essentially make encounter powers out of domains and school powers. Yeah the balance of the classes is still ridiculously off, but so long as you know that going in who cares. Playing a knight style fighter is great fun. at 18th level, i will be murderous. Maybe not as murderous as the wizard dropping time stop and meteor swarm, but does it really matter. Having fun is what it is all about.

Spoken like a true Player.

I mean that with no malice whatsoever. I am right there with you. I'll play anything, if the story's good, the other players are friends, and the DM's fair.

But that is the heart of it - the DM. That's why I can't go back to 3.x or on to PF. They haven't changed enough of the DM bits to make it work, or rather, less work. The last major D&D campaign I ran was a huge, epic arc that ran from 1st right on until it was done. That was about 18th or so. By the time I got into the low teens, the game required so much prep work, that even unemployed as I was, I didn't have the time to make it work every week, week after week. The game, and hence the story, suffered because of it.

We still had good games, and some good times, but I will never DM that system again*. Never.

Some will say, "but what about PF 2.0?!?!" and to that, I say, sure, I'll give it a look, but it won't be 3.x anymore by that point, and if it still is, then it isn't worth any more than its predecessor from where I sit: behind the screen.

I am not a 4e fanboy, though I like it. If my group said though, that they're abandoning it, I'd sooner go back to 2e, or previous, from a DM's perspective, or even perhaps a retro-clone. Maybe even a houseruled previous edition (perhaps throwing in some feats and Essentials-style boosts for the non-casters).

Or heck, another system entirely. There are lots, and I've played some. I like some more than others. Pretty much all of them more than 3.x, again, as a DM. I don't care what I play.

* E6 being a possible exception.

 

[Dannager]

Then, the problems arose, and WotC fixed them not with errata, but with a calculated scheme to provide fixes via new product. Armor Class didn't scale in the upper levels, so Masterwork Armor was introduced in Adventurer's Vault.

Er...no. No, it wasn't.

Masterwork armor is in the Player's Handbook. Open yours up to page 214. Under Cloth Armor, where it says Feyweave Armor and Starweave Armor? Those are masterwork armors. Adventurer's Vault gave us new masterwork armors, but those were mostly armors that sacrificed some AC in favor of other traits (damage reduction, or secondary defense bonuses).

 

[Fedifensor]

Masterwork armor is in the Player's Handbook. Open yours up to page 214. Under Cloth Armor, where it says Feyweave Armor and Starweave Armor? Those are masterwork armors. Adventurer's Vault gave us new masterwork armors, but those were mostly armors that sacrificed some AC in favor of other traits (damage reduction, or secondary defense bonuses).

Since I posted something similar on the WotC boards, I'll give the same reply...

While that is true, there were large gaps in the PHB armors. Heavy Armor, for example, went up in base value by +3 when you reached +4 armor. Assuming you got +4 armor on or around 16th level, that's 15 levels without an increase (other than enhancement bonus). By contrast, a character using Adventurer's Vault could get armor upgrades twice before that time (when upgrading to +2 armor and again with +3 armor). Those additions made it possible to having a continuing upgrade in AC instead of being behind the curve for half your adventuring career. Light Armor wasn't as dramatic, but did add bonuses to a NAD to fill out the levels where the base AC didn't go up with the enhancement bonus increase.

 

[buddhafrog]

After having played my first two PF games ever, I now would rather play PF over 4e... I'd also love to DM the games if only there were a monster builder (CB would be great, but I think MB would be necessary for me). I suppose I could buy the complete campaigns as I've heard they are pretty good. Still, when PF does go digital, even though we can expect an uproar by some, it will convince me to drop 4e and go full PF.

 

[nightspaladin]

Spoken like a true Player.

I mean that with no malice whatsoever. I am right there with you. I'll play anything, if the story's good, the other players are friends, and the DM's fair.

But that is the heart of it - the DM. That's why I can't go back to 3.x or on to PF. They haven't changed enough of the DM bits to make it work, or rather, less work. The last major D&D campaign I ran was a huge, epic arc that ran from 1st right on until it was done. That was about 18th or so. By the time I got into the low teens, the game required so much prep work, that even unemployed as I was, I didn't have the time to make it work every week, week after week. The game, and hence the story, suffered because of it.

We still had good games, and some good times, but I will never DM that system again*. Never.

Some will say, "but what about PF 2.0?!?!" and to that, I say, sure, I'll give it a look, but it won't be 3.x anymore by that point, and if it still is, then it isn't worth any more than its predecessor from where I sit: behind the screen.

I am not a 4e fanboy, though I like it. If my group said though, that they're abandoning it, I'd sooner go back to 2e, or previous, from a DM's perspective, or even perhaps a retro-clone. Maybe even a houseruled previous edition (perhaps throwing in some feats and Essentials-style boosts for the non-casters).

Or heck, another system entirely. There are lots, and I've played some. I like some more than others. Pretty much all of them more than 3.x, again, as a DM. I don't care what I play.

* E6 being a possible exception.

I completely agree with you on the dm-ing chore. Pathfinder and 3.x whatever are such a nightmare compared to dm-ing 4e. The only way I would even consider it is with the Pathfinder SRD loaded on a laptop. It has links to all the spells, powers the monsters have, so you are just a click away from a complete listing of the power they are using. I don't think I could ever go back to flipping through books to figure out what the Chaos Hammer the Demon is using does. 4e's monster design is in most ways vastly superior. The only thing I don't like about 4e's monsters is that they often have too few options. I know the theory is that they normally only last 4 rounds or less, but when you have multiple of the same most, it tends to get a little spammy. I would love to see them build monsters with a much longer laundry list of spells/powers. Even if i never use them all, it makes them feel like a more complete caster/threat than before. But that of course is a discussion for another board.

 

[mmaranda]

After running a lot of 3.X I am done with that game and the derivatives of it. It took too much time and often for little payoff. It also really encouraged PCs that made me shake my head. A human paladin couldn't use a warhorse in a dungeon, the solution make him a halfling or gnome and now the riding dog is totally effective. *Sigh*

 

[wedgeski]

All of these reasons are why WotC is on a downward spiral. So far, they've been saved by brand loyalty, and customer who feel locked into new purchases because they don't want to abandon something they've invested a lot of time and effort into (Living Forgotten Realms playes are an example of this).

Look, just no, okay? I know full well why I play and run 4E and it's got bugger-all to do with brand loyalty.

 

[NewJeffCT]

But that is the heart of it - the DM. That's why I can't go back to 3.x or on to PF. They haven't changed enough of the DM bits to make it work, or rather, less work. The last major D&D campaign I ran was a huge, epic arc that ran from 1st right on until it was done. That was about 18th or so. By the time I got into the low teens, the game required so much prep work, that even unemployed as I was, I didn't have the time to make it work every week, week after week. The game, and hence the story, suffered because of it.

We still had good games, and some good times, but I will never DM that system again*. Never.

Some will say, "but what about PF 2.0?!?!" and to that, I say, sure, I'll give it a look, but it won't be 3.x anymore by that point, and if it still is, then it isn't worth any more than its predecessor from where I sit: behind the screen.

I am not a 4e fanboy, though I like it. If my group said though, that they're abandoning it, I'd sooner go back to 2e, or previous, from a DM's perspective, or even perhaps a retro-clone. Maybe even a houseruled previous edition (perhaps throwing in some feats and Essentials-style boosts for the non-casters).

Or heck, another system entirely. There are lots, and I've played some. I like some more than others. Pretty much all of them more than 3.x, again, as a DM. I don't care what I play.

* E6 being a possible exception.

your experience DMing 3.5 was almost the exact same as mine - a huge epic campaign that went from level 1 to level 18. I found myself putting so much time into creating challenging encounters for my big group (myself and 8 players at the time) that the story and character development suffered the last half of the campaign. It was literally a full-time job to prepare.

There were a lot of good encounters that were challenging & memorable and good times - the big fight with the lich archmage was one where my lich had used all of her quickened spells and most of her big bang spells, while the party was down to their last legs in terms of hit points. I'd never been able to DM a bad guy that could cast "Time Stop" and other level 9 spells until that encounter.

When I looked over Pathfinder, I liked some of what they did, but they seemed to add more complexity to the base classes and it would be even more of a nightmare to prepare without the equivalent of Heroforge & Monsterforge for Pathfinder (not available when my 3.5 campaign ended). Sure, it's supposed to be backwards-compatible, but there were enough changes that it would be a nightmare of memorization/bookkeeping to track them.

I also don't love 4E, but it's a world easier on the DM than 3.5.

 

[Dausuul]

Yep, I'm another one in the "have my problems with 4E, will play anything, would never ever go back to running 3.5E/Pathfinder" camp. Many of my problems with 4E can be addressed with some judicious hackery. Others are being addressed by WotC--Essentials made me a happy camper. The rest are nuisances I can live with until 5E is released or I run across a better system.

(And before someone tells me to go find The Perfect RPG that does everything I want exactly how I want it: My group doesn't get to play as often as we'd like, trying a new system involves a small cost in money and a large cost in time, and so far I have yet to see a system that's as good as 4E at doing what I want done. I take a look at new systems from time to time, but unlike my player characters I'm not inclined to spend months on a quest for a wondrous legendary artifact that probably doesn't exist.)

 

[Obvious_Ninja]

I really didn't care for 4th ed the first time I tried it. I think really I needed to get used to the concepts with in it first. Now I DM it almost exclusively. We looked recently into trying Pathfinder, most likely due to some nostalgia for 3.x. Paizo did do a beautiful job with it, but it still holds, like for many of you, a great deal of what I didn't like about 3.5. That being said, I would use their adventure paths. I think they are excellent.

 

[GameOgre]

I played 4E and liked it but went to Pathfinder due to friends and hangups about 4E. After Dming PF for a long time now im soo friggin ready to give 4E another try. Pathfinder is a fun cool game that takes me hours and hours and days to prepare for. I find the Adventure paths awsome in theory but my players do NOT like them at all. They just do not like staying on one path for very long. So I end up creating my own stuff and adding paths and modules to it.

Pathfinder just takes too damn long at high levels. To be honest I don't know if 4E will be any better at high levels but I'm going to find out. I just slapped down $300 to buy what I thought I needed.

I do like Pathfinder,I just do NOT want to DM it anymore and im the only DM in town.

 

[Ryujin]

[MENTION=57914]GameOgre[/MENTION] - My players didn't like the PF adventure paths either but not because they didn't like being on one schtick for an extended period. They rather like large story arcs. It's because they didn't generally find them believable. In Crimson Throne the idea that a bunch of 4th level characters could decide the fate of a major city, led by NPCs that were multiples of their level, gave them bloody fits.

As I stated earlier in this thread, my own issue with the paths was that I frequently had to delve into what should have been exclusively story text, in order to find key in-game elements. Great, if you're writing a book, but Annoying to say the least if you're running a mod.

In 4e it's all served up, straight and obvious. I can concentrate on actually running the adventure, rather than making notes to cover what isn't stated directly in the various encounters. It seems to be a mindset that's propogated from the game mechanics.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Pathfinder just takes too damn long at high levels. To be honest I don't know if 4E will be any better at high levels but I'm going to find out. I just slapped down $300 to buy what I thought I needed.

I do like Pathfinder,I just do NOT want to DM it anymore and im the only DM in town.

I think what you will find is that your prep time will be reasonable, but combats probably longer, though I do remember plenty of dragged-out fights in 3.x too, so maybe not.

From a DM's perspective, even if 3.x or PF had a monster or encounter builder, it would still be a drag to prep. By the time my old 3.x campaign was into the higher levels, I had prepared stacks of simplified threats, basically ready to run, and it still took a long time, and combats still took for ever to resolve (and they were much "swingier").

 

[Matt James]

I see the "downward spiral" message is sticking. Kudos to Ryan Dancy--even if his prediction back in 2008 was completely false an erroneous.

I've said it all over the Internet. Play what you like to play, and try not to worry so much about the intricacies of the business plans. At the end of the day, no fan/consumer on the Internet has any clue what's being cooked up. If you really enjoy playing Pathfinder, by the gods play Pathfinder! If you and your buds get amped up playing 4e, jebus, play 4e!

Do what makes you horny, folks. Why worry about other people? Why does it matter? Why is this thread 13 pages long? Why am I not wearing pants? These questions do not really matter. Have fun, create fun, and keep it fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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).

Well, I have been playing Gamma World a lot lately. But aside from that, no. 4e is the best version of D&D to date. If they go off too far in the Essentials direction or quality slips and they ruin 4e, I may not buy any new products, but I expect I'll keep playing 4e for quite a while. If there's a 5e, I'll give it a fair shake, of course.

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?

There hasn't been a lot of respect-winning going down in the industry for some time. The other major lines I used to enjoy - the World of Darkness, and Hero System - have largely melted down, as well. D&D is about the only classic game that's still chugging along with a good, modern latest ed.

As much good stuff as I've heard about Savage Worlds and Spirit of the Century, I haven't actually tried either of them.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I think what you will find is that your prep time will be reasonable, but combats probably longer, though I do remember plenty of dragged-out fights in 3.x too, so maybe not.

Yup. Even though they were really only a couple of rounds, they took at least as long as 4e combats, which at least have more total rounds.

Hell, I remember taking just about the entirety of everyone else's round just to figure out my damage on my goliath rage-priest when he was smiting and power attacking.

Brad

 

[Canor Morum]

The answer is no.

I wouldn't "defect" to another game because that implies there is some over riding brand loyalty that my self-esteem depends on. I like D&D 4E, if I liked Pathfinder, I would play both. I don't have to choose one or the other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

@GameOgre - My players didn't like the PF adventure paths either but not because they didn't like being on one schtick for an extended period. They rather like large story arcs. It's because they didn't generally find them believable. In Crimson Throne the idea that a bunch of 4th level characters could decide the fate of a major city, led by NPCs that were multiples of their level, gave them bloody fits.

I'm running Kingmaker in 4e and have the same problem with the AP. Various things like dubious topography (the rivers flowing away from the plain and into the hills), inaccurate forced PC actions (that the PCs are going to stay by the town when a warparty invades rather than skirmish and slow them up to allow the town more time to prepare defences - or even that a low-will non-magical invading group of NPCs are going to seriously threaten PCs with 5th level spells). Oh, and the way the Stag Lord's fort was on cursed land to make as certain as possible you go in by the front door.

 

[The Halfling]

I'm running Kingmaker in 4e and have the same problem with the AP. Various things like dubious topography (the rivers flowing away from the plain and into the hills), inaccurate forced PC actions (that the PCs are going to stay by the town when a warparty invades rather than skirmish and slow them up to allow the town more time to prepare defences - or even that a low-will non-magical invading group of NPCs are going to seriously threaten PCs with 5th level spells). Oh, and the way the Stag Lord's fort was on cursed land to make as certain as possible you go in by the front door.

I have the first 3 AP from Paizo. While they do have nice production values, there are way too many assumptions made in the path's themselves that continually turn me off. I really want to convert them to 4e, as I think quite a few of the encounters would work better in that system. Oh well.

On a related note, I tried playing 3.5 again last night in an online game one of my players suggested, and it was horrible. I remember why so many campaigns started at 3rd level. My PC did not feel like a hero, heroic, or even competent. Having the monsters flee, not because the combat was decided and continuing on would be pointless, but rather to prevent a TPK. No thank you.

 

[Votan]

If they go off too far in the Essentials direction or quality slips and they ruin 4e, I may not buy any new products, but I expect I'll keep playing 4e for quite a while.

What is the concern with Essentials? I liked the lower complexity and the high production values in the books. I worry a bit that the soft cover books won't wear as well but they are easy to carry around.

Plus, the slayer is the Fighter class I have been missing since AD&D . . .