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

[thewok]

I'm very disappointed to see the class compendium cancelled. That was something I was really excited for, more essentialsish style takes on PHB classes, clarifications on some things never fully explained between essentials/core. I realize I'm apparently weird for liking books but gosh darnit I want it in printed and bound!

You're not alone here. I love books, and the e-book/PDF craze just hasn't gripped me like it has other people. That may be because I don't have a laptop or tablet, and "portability" isn't a factor with me.

But, it's still easier to read a book on the john than it is to take a laptop with you.

.... what?

 

[Ryujin]

My group DID defect to Pathfinder, after our first 1st to 20th run in 4e. DM #1 burnt out at level 4. I lasted somewhat longer, finally having enough of it by level 6. After that, we went back to 4e.

It wasn't really the game system, that was the issue. The whole group had more than a passing familiarity with 3.0/3.5. The problem, ultimately, was the adventure paths. With all of us being (nominally) mature adults with families, jobs, and responsibilities, we simply don't have the time to develop our own adventures. Hell, I've got the most free time out of the group, and I'm busy trying to run a photgraphy business, as a sideline.

The avdenture paths have fairly well-written stories, but there were certain points where the leaps of logic required fell apart. Unlike the 4e modules and adventures, the Pathfinder stuff frequently required digging through 'descriptive text', in order to pull out key items and story elements, that should really have been presented up front.

Twenty years ago I would have been able to give the game a fair shake. Not so much, today. 4e works better, for what we need.

 

[Midknightsun]

Defect to Pathfinder? No,not a chance. I bought the books and looked through it- like many other posters before me I found it a nice little upgrade to 3.5, but not different enough to make up for what I see as 3.5's failings. Would I play in a Pathfinder game? Sure. I respect what they have done over there and hear great things from the fans, but I would never DM it.

Did that with 3.5 and Arcana Evolved. Got the T-shirt and everything. Prep is too time consuming and I doubt Pathfinder would eliminate that issue. I used to joke back when I ran 3.5 that I might as well just go back for my Masters with all the homework I have for DnD (which I did- It was easier). I'm just burned out on 3.5 and Pathfinder doesn't appear different enough for me. I like 4e and the Essentials line. I may get stoned, but I even like the changes to FR (never liked it even in the 2e days- too crowded with superpowered NPCs). I also got tired of seeing NPCs I worked hours on get one-shot killed by PCs in very undramatic and pathetic ways.

I have been considering dropping the DDi because of all the odd nonsense going on, but that itself wouldn't stop me from playing 4e. If I were to get tired of 4e, I have many other systems that Id like to give a try (I am a gaming floozy) . I do like Savage Worlds and would be willing to give it a whirl. C&C looks interesting. I love Exalted and would play or DM that. Heck, I'd love to give the new DC Supers a try . . . but Pathfinder, nah. I'd play it if my group really wanted, but it would be under some slight protest.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Pathfinder gnomes are freaking awesome.

So, Yes. Yes, I've thought about playing Pathfinder.

But Pathfinder is 3.5 D&D. And I played a gnome sorcerer in 3.x from lvl 1 to lvl 20 across the schism.

And so there is no way in hell I'm every playing a version of 3.x D&D ever again.

 

[nnms]

I ran a 11 level long campaign in Golarion (Paizo's amazing campaign setting) using 4E rules. It worked great.

For anyone looking for a campaign setting that is truly beyond amazing, check out Golarion. It has everything, somewhere, but without being campy or coming across as kitchen-sink-ish.

I think I'd give it my vote for number one RPG campaign setting ever. Yes, I said ever.

 

[Thistonius]

Like most people on here, I'm completely burnt out on 3.5 and Pathfinder just isn't different from that edition in my opinion.

The biggest thing for me, as DM, as so many people have said, is the preparation time for creating an adventure. 3.5/PF felt like it was a job to create a single encounter, so many different rules and such. It was just such hard work. 4E on the other hand made it all simpler and I could get an adventure up within a few hours, fully written and stated out.

No matter what WoTC do with 4E, I will still play it and not move to another system unless something else comes along, say 5E or such. I enjoy playing 4E a lot, a lot more than I did when I was playing 3.5.

 

[Nilbog]

Well last night proved to me, why i'd have to be dragged to PF or back to 3.5e

Our regular DM had to drop out last minute, so i had to step in and run a one shot adventure (nothing too complex, just a few encounters, being a prelude to my main campaign) and was only give little notice to prepare this for a group of 11th levle characters.

So using nothing more than the encounter builing rules and the monster vault I threw together an encounter within the guidelines, including building dungeon tiles the entire process took about 30 mins. My last encounter I built in 3.5 took about 4 times as long.

To the actual game, the encounters went really well and the players agreed were challenging without being overpowering, and most importantly from my point of view every character had a chance to shine and do something really cool, there was no star of the show, which at high levels in 3.5e I found was a major problem.

Now don't get my wrong, 3.5 was a great system and I'm sure PF is as well, and I've played and DM'ed some great games in 3.5, and some encounters will stick with me for a long time, however these days, I have neither the time or energy to prepare the stuff.

 

[moxcamel]

Heh, poor Pathfinder, it's really taking a beating in this thread. And granted, I've also said I'd be willing to play but not DM, but honestly it's actually a great system. It's pretty impressive that they were able to take an essentially broken system and just through tweaks and some clever design, turn it into a system that is not only very robust and fun, but still 95% compatible with all the 3.5 stuff you owned up to that point. Pathfinder is everything D&D should have been back in the post-2ed era, and the fact that it's giving Wizards a run for their money speaks well for its designers and playtesters.

I still like 4e better, but it does make me wonder what 4e would be like if Paizo got their hands on it. I'd probably never play another system again.

 

[wedgeski]

I felt so claustrophobic within the 3.5 system that by the time 4E came out, I was gasping for change and the new edition seemed to do pretty much everything right. Like anyone I think it has its minor flaws and I'm now starting to house rule some of the stuff I don't particularly like, but as a piece of game design I think it's brilliant.

From the DM's side of the screen, D&D feels old-school to me again. I would definitely consider playing a PF campaign, as I would any 3.5 campaign, but 4E has spoiled any chance that I will ever DM 3.5 again.

 

[Barastrondo]

It is interesting. I find 4e feels more like a toolbox. Not in the sense of tinkering with the rules, though it has a lot of internal transparency so that isn't hard to do either. More in the sense of designing material for it. Ritual magic is a great hook to hang all kinds of things on frex. Monsters are very modular. Other encounter design elements are pretty well defined and easy to tweak.

You know, I was going to say that 4e feels more like a toolbox to me as well, but then I realized that they're both very much toolboxes. They're just full of differently designed tools, and the 4e tools fit my hand a little bit better.