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

[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 . . .