catastrophic
First Post
In a similar vein, if one day you burn the eggs you're cooking for breakfast, would you consider hitting yourself in the head with your frying pan? You know, to teach the eggs a lesson?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E [4E Players, mainly] Ever thought of defecting to Pathfinder?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
I love 4E and from what I've seen Pathfinder did nothing to fix the parts of 3.x that I disliked. Even if WotC produces no more products that I am interested in and I stop buying any new D&D products, I'll still play 4E with the stuff that I already have. The only thing that would get me to consider going to Pathfinder would be if all of my gaming group wanted to. But it would be a very hard sell.
"Defect" has such a Cold War feel to it...
No, I'm not going to switch to Pathfinder. 4e is the right tool set for building my current campaign, and that's all that matters. Should I decide to run a campaign using the 3e framework, I'd simply use 3e and customize it, using the familiarity with the system I've gained over the years.
I don't see the value in Pathfinder. It seems like a quality product, what I've read about the setting seems really interesting, and certainly it has its share of ardent and vocal fans, but the bottom line is, I don't need to buy 3e again.
No, I'm not going to switch to Pathfinder. 4e is the right tool set for building my current campaign, and that's all that matters. Should I decide to run a campaign using the 3e framework, I'd simply use 3e and customize it, using the familiarity with the system I've gained over the years.
I don't see the value in Pathfinder. It seems like a quality product, what I've read about the setting seems really interesting, and certainly it has its share of ardent and vocal fans, but the bottom line is, I don't need to buy 3e again.
JediSoth
Voice Over Artist & Author
I've thought about it, and I keep waffling back and forth over which FRPG I really want to run.
As a player, 4E isn't my favorite iteration of the game ever. As a GM, it's the easiest to prep for since AD&D 2nd edition.
As a player, Pathfinder allows me a ton of options using a system I like almost as much as I liked AD&D 2nd edition. As a GM, having all those options makes game prep more difficult because not only do I have to design NPCs around that, I have to keep in mind what the PCs are capable of and I'm really bad at remembering that. Plus, there are no electronic tools I'm aware of for encounter design (at least, none that are as easy to use and as fast as the 4E Encounter Designer, or even the 2nd ed. Core Rules CD-ROM).
So, I'm torn. There are other good systems, to be sure. AD&D 2nd edition was a lot of fun in its day. Hackmaster looks really good now, too. Finding players can be problematic, unfortunately. Around here, a lot of people play D&D. Not only that, they stick with whatever the current version is. I know a couple of people who have bought into Pathfinder, and maybe one who would still have his 2nd edition stuff, should I choose that route.
I fear I will be limited by what my players will be willing to play. I'm OK with it if I can only find 4E players. Maybe, over time, my feelings about the game will change; I've only recent rediscovered my love for 2nd edition, after all. Frankly, as much as I like Pathfinder, I'm reluctant to run it because high-level play is still wonky (not that I've ever had a campaign last that long) and game prep is a pain. It would probably be OK if I could just stick to running Adventure Paths. 4E, on the other hand, has electronic tools that can speed up my game prep to the point that I can prepare a whole session's worth of adventure in just a few hours.
If it turns out that I join my next game as a player, instead of a GM, then I think my position will flip: I'd rather play Pathfinder than 4E. I'd rather GM 4E than Pathfinder. I actually find Hackmaster to be too complex and fiddly, but if the only game I could find to play in was Hackmaster, I would gladly play. If someone was running a different FRPG, well, I'd have to evaluate that on a case by case basis (unless it was D&D BECMI, or AD&D; I'd play those again for sure), because I only own three FRPGs (D&D in various editions, Pathfinder, and Hackmaster Basic).
To me, they fill different niches; they scratch different itches. I'm fortunate in that I have sufficient disposable income that I can have a library full of different RPGs, and if I don't have one, I can acquire it with a minimum of effort. Sadly, that also means I sometimes have to actually decide which to dedicate myself to for a significant length of time while I'm surrounded by people who aren't willing to pick up a new game for just a few sessions of change.
If you find a good group who plays Pathfinder, a group you get along with and have fun with, I see no reason not to switch. On the other hand, if you find the same thing in a group playing 4E, play with them. If you can find both, and have time for both, then ... live the dream, my friend!
As a player, 4E isn't my favorite iteration of the game ever. As a GM, it's the easiest to prep for since AD&D 2nd edition.
As a player, Pathfinder allows me a ton of options using a system I like almost as much as I liked AD&D 2nd edition. As a GM, having all those options makes game prep more difficult because not only do I have to design NPCs around that, I have to keep in mind what the PCs are capable of and I'm really bad at remembering that. Plus, there are no electronic tools I'm aware of for encounter design (at least, none that are as easy to use and as fast as the 4E Encounter Designer, or even the 2nd ed. Core Rules CD-ROM).
So, I'm torn. There are other good systems, to be sure. AD&D 2nd edition was a lot of fun in its day. Hackmaster looks really good now, too. Finding players can be problematic, unfortunately. Around here, a lot of people play D&D. Not only that, they stick with whatever the current version is. I know a couple of people who have bought into Pathfinder, and maybe one who would still have his 2nd edition stuff, should I choose that route.
I fear I will be limited by what my players will be willing to play. I'm OK with it if I can only find 4E players. Maybe, over time, my feelings about the game will change; I've only recent rediscovered my love for 2nd edition, after all. Frankly, as much as I like Pathfinder, I'm reluctant to run it because high-level play is still wonky (not that I've ever had a campaign last that long) and game prep is a pain. It would probably be OK if I could just stick to running Adventure Paths. 4E, on the other hand, has electronic tools that can speed up my game prep to the point that I can prepare a whole session's worth of adventure in just a few hours.
If it turns out that I join my next game as a player, instead of a GM, then I think my position will flip: I'd rather play Pathfinder than 4E. I'd rather GM 4E than Pathfinder. I actually find Hackmaster to be too complex and fiddly, but if the only game I could find to play in was Hackmaster, I would gladly play. If someone was running a different FRPG, well, I'd have to evaluate that on a case by case basis (unless it was D&D BECMI, or AD&D; I'd play those again for sure), because I only own three FRPGs (D&D in various editions, Pathfinder, and Hackmaster Basic).
To me, they fill different niches; they scratch different itches. I'm fortunate in that I have sufficient disposable income that I can have a library full of different RPGs, and if I don't have one, I can acquire it with a minimum of effort. Sadly, that also means I sometimes have to actually decide which to dedicate myself to for a significant length of time while I'm surrounded by people who aren't willing to pick up a new game for just a few sessions of change.
If you find a good group who plays Pathfinder, a group you get along with and have fun with, I see no reason not to switch. On the other hand, if you find the same thing in a group playing 4E, play with them. If you can find both, and have time for both, then ... live the dream, my friend!
Nilbog
Snotling Herder
I wouldn't switch to pathfinder. I have a few of the pathfinder books and i love them, the art and writing style is fantastic, they were obviously created by a team who love the hobby.
But the reasons I wouldn't switch are as follows:
a) Time - I used to be the only DM in 3.5e days and the prep time was incredibly high, but back then I had the time, so no big issue, these days when time is a more precious commodity, I couldn't justify it. this leads nicely onto:
b) I can now play! as 4e is so much easier to DM 4 of us now share the DM'ing duty, and I love this variety, I could never see the other guys DM'ing pathfinder and possibly most importantly;
c) Our group loves 4e, it really fills what WE think of as DnD, and I wouldn't want to change. The only thing that worries me is that if, as appears, Wizards are choking back their releases 4e could lose some of that 'wow' factor, but I'm sure there is already enough material to cope with this.
Would be a dream come true for me if Paizo could make 4e adventure paths!
But the reasons I wouldn't switch are as follows:
a) Time - I used to be the only DM in 3.5e days and the prep time was incredibly high, but back then I had the time, so no big issue, these days when time is a more precious commodity, I couldn't justify it. this leads nicely onto:
b) I can now play! as 4e is so much easier to DM 4 of us now share the DM'ing duty, and I love this variety, I could never see the other guys DM'ing pathfinder and possibly most importantly;
c) Our group loves 4e, it really fills what WE think of as DnD, and I wouldn't want to change. The only thing that worries me is that if, as appears, Wizards are choking back their releases 4e could lose some of that 'wow' factor, but I'm sure there is already enough material to cope with this.
Would be a dream come true for me if Paizo could make 4e adventure paths!
I've had enormous amounts of fun with 4e. The D&D games I played of prior editions (AD&D2e and D&D3.5) were all right, but mostly in that in-spite-of-the-system "hey, it's something I'm doing with friends" way. I have no interest in a product line that carries on the legacy of something that never much resonated with me in the first place.
JoeGKushner
First Post
I'm not switching. I already own most of the PF stuff so if I want to play it, I'll play it.
I am more interested in seeing how things progress as D&D goes more digital and other companies continue to put product on the shelf. I'll especially be curious to see if the OSR group having a table at Gen Con is able to attract that old school guard WoTC bent over backwards with Essentials to get and if Pathfinder continuing to put out adventurers, affordable PDFs of their core books, and well, new products, will take up the #1 spot again. When you reach these milestones, it's harder for the other guy to get 'em back. DC has been behind Marvel for years in many aspects of the market.
However, if D&D's digital initative brings them more money, it won't matter whose the #1 selling RPG because it will have met WoTC goals.
I am more interested in seeing how things progress as D&D goes more digital and other companies continue to put product on the shelf. I'll especially be curious to see if the OSR group having a table at Gen Con is able to attract that old school guard WoTC bent over backwards with Essentials to get and if Pathfinder continuing to put out adventurers, affordable PDFs of their core books, and well, new products, will take up the #1 spot again. When you reach these milestones, it's harder for the other guy to get 'em back. DC has been behind Marvel for years in many aspects of the market.
However, if D&D's digital initative brings them more money, it won't matter whose the #1 selling RPG because it will have met WoTC goals.
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
Not seriously, no.
I've picked the Pathfinder book up, but it doesn't look different enough from the pile of 3.5 stuff I already have to make it worth my time and effort.
Hell, we're more likely to switch to a completely other system for next game. I've been lobbying for Shadowrun, as my current sig suggests, because I've been doing swords and spells for like 8 years straight. At least guns and spells would be different.
Brad
I've picked the Pathfinder book up, but it doesn't look different enough from the pile of 3.5 stuff I already have to make it worth my time and effort.
Hell, we're more likely to switch to a completely other system for next game. I've been lobbying for Shadowrun, as my current sig suggests, because I've been doing swords and spells for like 8 years straight. At least guns and spells would be different.
Brad
GameDoc
Explorer
From a "support your local game shop" perspective it would be a tough call if 4e went under. I DM for my friend's shop in the small town where we live. He asks only one thing of me: run a game using an in print product line he carries. I don't think that's an unreasonable request, but if effectively limited me to 4e and Pathfinder. I went with 4e, because, as so many have already stated, I don't have the time to prepare sessions using 3.x. I remember spending as much time prepping a session as running it.
If we had to drop 4e and change over to Pathfinder, I would probably stand down as DM. Either that, or try and convince my friend to carry Castles & Crusades, which I've found is also easy prep work for the DM (or CK to be precise) and close enough to D&D that player's can make the switch.
If we had to drop 4e and change over to Pathfinder, I would probably stand down as DM. Either that, or try and convince my friend to carry Castles & Crusades, which I've found is also easy prep work for the DM (or CK to be precise) and close enough to D&D that player's can make the switch.
Similar Threads
