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

[Ourph]

I have been voting with my dollar re: WotC's recent choices. I didn't renew my subscription to DDI because I don't like the online CB or the way they screwed up the MB with the last update. I stopped buying hardbacks because they were too expensive. However, I still like the game they are producing, so I play it. I liked what they did with Essentials, so I bought the Rules Compendium and Monster Vault. I will continue to buy products that interest me.

However, I don't think it would be useful or productive to throw my money at another game that I don't especially like as a result of WotC making some decisions that don't appeal to me. By doing that, I'd be sending the message that I WANT a game like Pathfinder and don't want a game like 4e, when that isn't the case at all.

I think an all or none reaction is actually harmful to your position in the hobby if WotC is actually producing a game that you like to play (and that is what is provoking accusations of immaturity). My advice is, buy products that you want, stay away from products that you don't and if WotC is doing things you don't like as a customer, call or email customer service and let them know how they can make you happier as a customer.

 

[Insight]

I know there is a lot of speculation about the recent WotC announcements, but for my the conclusion is simple: They've stopped development of the Essentials line.

As we want to start a new campaign after our current module is finished I am indeed left with the question what to do?

Do I go with the Essential line, even though it has quite some stuff missing (basically the stuff in the cancelled books). Do I go back to the original 4 edition line and use that. Or is it time to switch?

Sorry to sidetrack a tiny bit, but...

There's no "switching" to be done. Essentials characters play just fine with "Classic" 4E characters. It's being done right now in my Dark Sun game. The only "switching" would be towards using the "new" rules that were introduced with Essentials. That's a matter of preference more than anything else.

 

[Pseudonym]

Now to you. Have you thought seriously about "defecting" to Pathfinder or another edition of D&D or game altogether?

I already play non-WotC games in addition to 4E D&D so I don't need to "defect" to anything because I'm already playing it. Regarding 4E, I have the entire Essentials line and a good chunk of the 4E stuff that interested me as a player. It still plays the same as the day I bought it.

 

[Insight]

As for the actual thread topic, I love the production values and vision I see in Paizo's product, but I cannot go back to running anything akin to 3x. 4th ed makes it so much easier on the DM. I would play Pathfinder, if I had no other choice, but I would not run it as my preferred system. Heck, 4E may not be my preferred system (of all RPGs) when it comes right down to it, but it is for D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

In the end I will continue to support both companies. I don't want to see WotC drop 4E and I hold out hope that they will pull themselves out of the whole that they have dug themselves into. I am hopeful but not confident, as it seems that the Dancey Death Spiral Prophecy is becoming more and more truthful.

Well, remember the end of the prophecy. Dancey lays out three options. The first is catastrophic collapse. The second is massive downsizing to bring costs in line with revenue, perhaps licensing out the property--D&D shrinks to become just another fantasy RPG instead of the 800-pound gorilla. And the third is a traumatic rebirth a la 3E.

So, even if Dancey is correct, it doesn't mean D&D is doomed.

 

[AntlerDruid]

I played Pathfinder when it first came out and played it all the way until 4E came out. Was it better than the regular 3.5/3E rules? you bet! The Pathfinder books are beautiful - great art. I like the classes they have especially the new Witch.

Would I go back to Pathfinder now that I played 4E.....no way.

While there are certain elements of 4E that I don't like (Skill System, Healing Surges), overall I feel 4E is a vast improved game. I like how 4E works. 3.5 was way too cumbersome.

I am glad Pathfinder is there for those who prefer 3.5 but my time with Pathfinder is over.

Even if WOTC goes down, I still have my 4E books so I am not deserting 4E.

I do wish the new Character Builder had been better....that was probably my biggest disappointment with 4E. To me the CB is utterly useless as all my campaigns use House Rules and new CB doesn't support that.

I have been playing D&D since the 1E Ad&d & Basic Red boxset. I still think 4E is the best.

 

[Epametheus]

I currently DM a 4E game and play in a Pathfinder game.

4E is so much easier to DM than 3.5 was. While I think I could DM a Pathfinder game, I'd probably do an adventure path over trying to run something that's completely from scratch.

Essentials hasn't really grabbed me; its just some of the earlier mechanics in different clothes, and some feats that obsolete older feats. I'm much more concerned that WotC stopped support for the CB that (a) allowed for house rule elements, (b) could be used without a DDI subscription, so it was easily used by all of my players, and (c) was somewhat reliable.

I don't expect my 4E group to do another 4th Edition game after mine ends; whether my 4E group will go to Pathfinder or go to something complete different remains to be seen.

 

[Vael]

My view of Pathfinder remains the same as 3.5: If asked, I'll play it, but I'm not interested in running it or spending much money on it. Yeah, there are occasions I miss Vancian casting (those moments don't last too long, but they happen), but to be honest, I would rather play 3.5 over Pathfinder, because of the more interesting subsystems like Incarnum or Tome of Battle.

However, I DM 4e. I like to DM 4e, it's versatile, PCs are fairly well balanced and I can run the game without the headaches that 3.5 induced and Pathfinder hasn't really cleaned up.

To discuss WotC's direction of late ... to me, the problem is that 4e is fairly mature, robust and varied system. Which means that more waves of PC classes and feats and magic items are approaching an oversaturation. I already think there are too many feats and magic items, there's a lot of stuff in 4e to sort through these days.

This isn't to say I don't want more stuff, I can name a bunch of new races, classes and such that I'd love to see in the game. But 4e seems to have the most of the general bases covered.

From a DM's perspective ... while more monsters and adventures are good, there are two major needed things: more support for upper level play, and tools for more varied campaigns. I'd be interested in seeing a 4e take on Kingmaker, because while the concept was intriguing, I was displeased with Paizo's execution and mechanics. Tools for intrigue, building strongholds, PCs as community leaders, that kind of stuff.

 

[The Little Raven]

I know there is a lot of speculation about the recent WotC announcements, but for my the conclusion is simple: They've stopped development of the Essentials line.

No, they finished development of the Essentials line, since it was a 10-products-and-out set of products. All ten of the products have been released. Essentials are the 10 evergreen products, not every product that uses a similar class design philosophy.

 

[Henry]

I feel similarly to Epametheus; I play both right now (with largely the same group in both) and we're not playing essentials stuff, we're playing Dark Sun and earlier stuff. I'm concerned enough about the quality of DDI that I canceled it two months ago, and unless something changes, I'm not renewing. Their way ahead, now, looks even darker than when I canceled it!

For me, Pathfinder scratches a different "itch" than 4E; 4E reminds me more of earlier, pre-3E D&D than Pathfinder does. Pathfinder fixed some (but not all or even most) of the problems I have with 3E, but it does play better, and I would prefer it to 3E.

Pathfinder, without doubt, possesses far more customizable options than 4E does, and is better serving for those who have the desire to "tweak" and customize the heck out of their characters. However, I'm not happy with the burden on the DM, nor the need I would feel to have to run an Adventure Path or some such just to mot have to prepare so much prior to a game. I don't have time to spend three hours prepping one NPC the way I used to a few years ago, and I don't want to pick some canned guy out of the Gamemaster Guide and still have to spend time familiarizing myself with him just to have him die in an hour because I forgot he has seven buffs prepared normally.

On the other hand, I do have a desire to tweak my PC from time to time, and the other guys I play with LOVE Pathfinder, and the other players' comfort with the game brings out roleplaying ability and personal excitement that's worth me tweaking fiddly bits on a PC.

I say, Mercurius, if you have a choice between Pathfinder and 3E, pick Pathfinder, without doubt -- if you and your group are still happy with the main body of work for 4E, use that, and don't worry about voting with your dollar. When they produce products that are crappy to you, and you can't use and don't buy, they'll get the message quickly enough.