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

[KJSEvans]

A few times I've been tempted to buy Pathfinder, but I just can't quite seem to do it. I like the look of a lot of their products; honestly, I really do. However, upon flipping through the core books, I also noticed that they 'fixed' some of the issues with D&D 3.5 in ways that I'm not entirely thrilled about. To be sure, they did add things which I really really like (capstone abilities for classes is one,) but they also patched some of the holes with things I really don't like at all (as hard is it may be to believe, it is very possible for a smart player to abuse unlimited use of cantrips*.)

*There are other examples, but that's one which is fresh in my memory. Another would be that I find that Pathfinder is only semi-backwards compatible. I have a lot of 3rd edition books which have material I'm unsure about how to modify to fit more fully into Pathfinder. There's also the fact that I can't quite shake the idea that I'd feel as though I was relearning how to play a game I should already know how to play.

Oddly, even though I'm not 4th Edition's biggest fan, it did a lot to help me become more knowledgable about what I want out of an rpg experience. I liked the lessened power curve between levels so much that I discovered I would like to try playing a game without levels. Likewise, the taste of the more gamey play was somewhat bitter in my mouth, and I found that I wanted something which could be more gritty and had more complexity. In short, D&D 4E helped me become a GURPS player.

I still do play 4E. It's a nice game if I don't want to get too deep into some of the things I enjoy or I'm playing with my friends who prefer something more linear. Also, I can now enjoy 4E more that I'm not trying to force it to do things it wasn't designed to do. (As I've said elsewhere, you can do those things, but I got tired of fighting and fiddling with the system.)

If I want more complexity like I had with 3rd Edition, but I don't want to deal with 3rd Edition's problems, I don't feel Pathfinder is the place for me. The folks over at SJG have a game which allows me to have the complexity I liked from the previous version of D&D, and also allows me to take the parts of 4E I liked (the lesser power curve between levels) even further. In addition, I'm able to convert creatures and concepts from both collections of books I have into the same set of rules.

Recently, I have been looking at the Hackmaster stuff. I've never played Hackmaster, but I like the look of their new products. I also like what I've been told about the playstyle that Hackmaster supports. I'm very heavily considering buying some Hackmaster books.

So, where am I now? I guess maybe I could be considered to have jumped ship from D&D depending on how you look at it. I still play D&D. It's just been a really long time since I've given WoTC any of my money (I can't say Hasbro because I recently bought Betrayal At the House on The Hill.) I think the last 4E product I bought was Manual of The Planes. As for Pathfinder, it looks nice, but some sort of mental block prevents me from handing my money to Paizo. Right now, my buying habits are such that -if Steve Jackson Games were the name of a stripper- I'd be helping to put her through college.

Sorry to respond to a month-old post...

I'm a huge, huge, massive fan of HackMaster. Right now, it might be worth considering - the Basic game can be purchased for under $20 in many places, and it can easily be played for a long, long time without you needing to buy extra product for support.

Of course, the Hacklopedia of Beasts is due to hit the shelves in April, and is much pricier than $20, but it's worth it. (Not to mention, unlike some companies, K&C does not flood the market with product every month... $60 a month would be bad. $60 twice a year? Doable.)

 

[babinro]

I love 4E too much to switch to any other product at this time.

Granted, I no longer purchase books for 4E, and may not again with possible exceptions of Monster Manuals and Player Handbooks but that's not the point.

4E has an amazingly customizable foundation of mechanics where, after some time getting used to the game, you can simply throw together monsters from scratch with made up powers and expect it to be relatively balanced.

That being said, I do have an interest of where the future of D&D is headed. I've pretty much lost all confidence in any future 4E products catching my attention. It'll take a lot to make a 5th edition superior enough to warrant my wanting to switch...but with all things I will consider my options when the time comes.

Back to topic. At the time I truly enjoyed 3.5. It is what introduced me to D&D. However, having eventually switched over to 4E a few years later, I realized how much better gaming can be. Pathfinder maintains many aspects in 3.x that I simply don't enjoy. It certainly feels more 'hardcore'...but in this instance, that simply doesn't translate to being more fun in my opinion. I would probably only play it, if I literally had the choice of playing Pathfinder, or nothing at all.

 

[Mentat55]

I played a lot of 3.x, including Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (a variant PHB from Monte Cook), and a little bit of Pathfinder. I didn't find much difference among the 3 (3.x, AU/AE, and PF). They have the same advantages and flaws -- Pathfinder changed 3.5e in the details, treating symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes. In some cases, the causes may or may not be an issue for a player, DM, or entire gaming group.

For me some of the underlying problems of 3.5e were too big, and I decided to move to 4e. I really like it -- I would never DM any other version of D&D except for a one-shot (or for nostalgia, in the case of 1st ed AD&D or BECMI), but I would play Pathfinder and 3.5e.

Short answer, 3.5e and Pathfinder are good games, but I prefer 4e, and despite WotC's missteps, I will stick with 4e.

 

[buddhafrog]

I haven't read one comment yet (11 pages will take some time) but:

I played my first Pathfinder game this past weekend and loved it. Loved it! I've only played AD&D 25 years ago and a whole bunch of 4e this past year. I am loaded with 4e materials - everything. But now I'm starting to wonder if I might not like Pathfinder even more.

I will continue in my game and see how things develop.

One thing that I worry about as a DM - I use the character builder and especially the MONSTER BUILDER all the time. Pathfinder doesn't have a similar program, does it?

 

[buddhafrog]

one more: I wish pathfinder had more race varieties... besides that, I don't think I had any complaints at all.

 

[Siberys]

No, it doesn't. TBH, on the monster builder front, even if it did have it it'd be nearly useless. Monster building in PF is much more art than science. I mean, it's more art than science in 4e, but numerical stuff is very 'tight'. In PF, the guidelines are so loose a light breeze could blow 'em off.

I've been trying to get my PF group to switch to 4e almost entirely because monsters and encounter building are so wonky on my end.

 

[Dannager]

One thing that I worry about as a DM - I use the character builder and especially the MONSTER BUILDER all the time. Pathfinder doesn't have a similar program, does it?

Pathfinder has Hero Lab, but it is expensive and less user-friendly than DDI. The level of convenience provided to the DM by way of a DDI subscription is immense. Even if I were not as big a fan of the system as I am, having to give up DDI would make running any other game system seem like a return to the Dark Ages. Going forward, I don't think it's going to be possible to produce a new, competitive edition without a strong focus on providing that same level of convenience through digital tools.

I mean, if 5e came out and made nothing but great changes to the game, I think there are a lot of DMs who would still be reluctant to switch if it didn't offer a Character Builder / Monster Builder / Compendium / (Virtual Tabletop?).

 

[Ryujin]

True, except that there's no guarantee that the online support for 4e would continue into 5e. That's the problem with the tools all being pulled back to a main server, for active use. In the past if I didn't have a 'net connection, I could always bring up a high level character in CB, to check powers, items, etc..

Even so, as I said earlier, it's far easier for me to run 4e than Pathfinder. Two of us, who both DM for the same group, came to the same conclusion independantly, over the course of a couple of sessions.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, it doesn't. TBH, on the monster builder front, even if it did have it it'd be nearly useless. Monster building in PF is much more art than science. I mean, it's more art than science in 4e, but numerical stuff is very 'tight'. In PF, the guidelines are so loose a light breeze could blow 'em off.

I've been trying to get my PF group to switch to 4e almost entirely because monsters and encounter building are so wonky on my end.

In PF, it's more science than 3rd edition. While the PF guildelines are loose, in 3e, the guidelines where nonexistant.

 

[The Halfling]

I'm my group's DM, and we are running 4e. We're coming on to a break in our campaign, so one of my players expressed an interest in running a game using PF. Since the other player interested in DM'ing is tied up running Encounters, we all said sure.

So I went to the PF srd online, and started looking over the options, and all the reasons I stopped playing 3e in the first place came rushing back. Even using the CB from Hero Forge for PF, the process just seemed arcane and messy. I just couldn't complete it, and I was just making a simple paladin of 2nd level. Like some people who hate the power system of 4e, the unneeded complexity of the feat system in PF made my eyes glaze. I used to be a card carrying power gamer, and knew the 3e intimately, but that level of system mastery required is no longer my cup of tea.

So, while I'll eventually create a PC (thankfully it's a one-shot), I rather play 1/2e or even C&C before going back to 3e or one of its derivatives on any long term basis.