4E to Pathfinder - what is it like? What do you miss? Pleasant surprises?

[Mercurius]

In light of the thread I started 4E Burnout, I wanted to get a bit more specific and ask people for their experiences changing from 4E to Pathfinder. What did you like about it? Dislike? What do you miss from 4E? What were some pleasant surprises? (e.g. I forgot about spell lists!"). How would you characterize the shift in terms of the in-game experience, combat, character development, etc?

 

[Saint Mac]

Having played so many editions of D&D, when 4th came around I was excited. Now, this isn't a "hate" on D&D, it simply was not what I was hoping for. After playing a year of 4E and not digging it, I found Pathfinder (of which I play today).

You want specifics? They are hard to define but I'll give a go. Well, I "felt" like I couldn't make the character I wanted in 4E. I missed 3.5 skills and the depth of it in character generation and growth. Does 4E have these things? Sure, but it didn't 'feel' right. The Classes felt off. Why have this class when another can easily replace it. Classes in pre-4E had a place in the group, but that seemed to change. At-will casting? I get that and dig it, but the "encounter" aspect felt like a limit rather than an "ease of use". Sooo when I started to GM Pathfinder, it was all there for me again.

Least anyone confuses what Pathfinder is, it is 3.5875757 to me. I dug how they simplified grapple and trip while not loosing that skill list. They "give" you something for every level too, I like that, makes leveling exciting. The other part was the support Paizo community gives you. That may seem odd, but it matters when you post a question and have people actually help instead of mock. That isn't Wizard's falt, its the sad status of 'One up' you can frequently find in the D&D forums. Wonder if that isn't because, as D&D players, we constantly asked for more rules and now you have to have a Masters in it.

I also dig Paizo's APs, but anyone can convert those into their game. It just made sense to me to keep within the base game since I liked the rule set. I'm getting off topic, sorry.


Making the change from 4E to Path was easy for me because I played 3.5, so maybe this isn't as helpful as I wish. What do I miss from 4E? Well, I think that it was closer in that desire to bring editions together, something we are now hearing about. So I give kudos, but you said "miss". Honestly, I don't miss the edtion as much as missing new ideas for 3E.

Mechanics and game play differences? Well, I have to say that if a 4E player started playing Pathfinder, they might feel like there's too much to think about or do. I would imagin that they might feel a bit overwhelmed until they started making mental connections to moves or attacks they used in 4E. Taking the wizard for instance looking down at a huge spell list. 4E gives what you are able to do (in general) in that encounter/day/at-will. Pathfinder wizard, although having to deal with per day, has the whole list of what you can cast at that level. So, depending on the experience of the group, a 4e player could feel that the game is slower and complicated.

4E split our group, as when 3E came out. I'm truely hoping the NEXT can bridge that.

I hopes this is helpful. Thanks for asking.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks [MENTION=95315]Saint Mac[/MENTION], that's very helpful. If anything it confirms both what I would hope for and fear from switching to Pathfinder: I'd hope for a more "classic D&D" game with tons of customizable options and some of the sacred cows that I miss (e.g. spell lists), but what I fear is more complexity and confusion for players--most of whom are in their late 30s/early 40s and hadn't played D&D since the late 80s or early 90s when we started playing 4E a couple years ago, so they're not familiar with 3E.

I am also a bit leery about Pathfinder prep time and would want to look into ways to "4Eify" it a bit. Obviously there's no Character Builder or Monster Builder, but are there any other tools to get around prep time? I'd rather spend my prep time world-building, coming up with plot hooks, drawing maps and such than creating intricate NPCs and monster stat blocks.

I'm going to hunker down and read through the Beginner's Box.

 

[mach1.9pants]

+1 for the Beginner Box, a great product IMO

 

[Mercurius]

While I'm at it, and rather than start a new thread over in the Pathfinder forum, which Adventure Paths do people like the best? Which are generally considered to be good, ok, duds? Looking over these descriptions, the ones I'm most drawn to are Rise of the Runelords, Legacy of Fire, Serpent's Skull, and maybe Kingmaker; actually, Serpent's Skull is somewhat similar to the idea I was working on anyways, so maybe it makes sense to try that.

It seems that an Adventure Path would be a good way for a new Pathfinder DM to be hand-held (somewhat) through the process.

 

[Aramax]

I switched from a 3 year 4th to Pathfinder,but am not really sold yet.
Ive only been playing Pathfinder for about 3 months.
It is a major improvement over 4th but would only give it a B-.
Low level characters are very powerful,especially in the areas of damage output for the Melee guys and raw healing power of the cleric.
For reasons I cant explain the roleplaying aspects have improved,
itwas something that was lacking in 4th,which I could never understand.
Ive house ruled all the aspects of 4th that I liked,mostly races and classes
and brought in a class from 3.5 w/ no prob.

But I think if I knew then what I know now I would have broken out my 3.5 rules ,waited for 5th then switched to it or Pathfinder

 

[S'mon]

Thanks [MENTION=95315]Saint Mac[/MENTION], that's very helpful. If anything it confirms both what I would hope for and fear from switching to Pathfinder: I'd hope for a more "classic D&D" game with tons of customizable options and some of the sacred cows that I miss (e.g. spell lists), but what I fear is more complexity and confusion for players...

...I'm going to hunker down and read through the Beginner's Box.

I've read the BB but not played it yet. It seems to me that the BB game is very simple, smooth, and should be easy to play and run. I'm also worried about the complexity of the full game, I'd think the best approach was to bring in additional elements gradually, not all at once, and assess if they cause problems or slow the game down.

 

[jbear]

I play both.

Differences that stand out (and I think most of these are true of 3.5 from which it grew):

It takes me longer to build my charcters in Pathfinder. This may have to do with my familiarity and rules mastery of 4e however. But some of this stems from my next observation.

Equipment is far more important and interesting in PF, even mundane equipment. And not all mundane equipment is necessarily within the reach of your PC immeadiately due to the cost. This is a difference I very much prefer. It has a few fiddly features lie working out the price of magic items combining the masterwork cost etc which are a little too on the fiddly side for my liking, but that's a very minor complaint. If you play a weak character you are really going to have to measure exactly hom many arrows you carry, and how many days food you take. Funnily enough, having to actually carefully choose exactly what gear you carry I quite enjoy. Which leads me to my next observation.

Character stats are 'harder' to dump. Well not really. In PF you can drop more than one stat below 10 if you choose in order to pump up other stats using the point buy system.
But it hurts more to do so because each stat is fairly important in its own right to every character. In 4e its a no brainer for a fighter to dump INT as it only affects skills that the fighter has no business being good at in any case (religion, history, arcana). No sacrifice at all. But in PF skill points, which are very important (no scaling level bonus like 4e) are generated based on INT. So if you dump INT your fighter will gain very very few skill poinnts to distrinute each level, which really hurts. Same for Strength. Your cleric if planning to be involved in melee whatsoever can't dump strength and build a purely wisdom based character. For a start they won't be able to carry the weight of the armor due to encumberance issues. Second all attacks are based off strength for all characters. No using wisdom for your attacks. Even a rogue has to think twice about dumping strength. Even with weapon finesse feat to use DEX to attack, dmg remains based on STR.

Battles are far less tactical. At least in the games I have played in here on EnWorld (pbp) I have seen no use of interesting terrain whatsoever for example. In Pathfinder winning initiative is far more important as you can die/kill in one or two hits. It's more important to have the right weapon to avoid Damage Reduction to avoid this. Blunt/piercing/slashing is important.

As a melee character you just attack. There are combat manuevers like trip, but you draw an OAtk to use them. Being prone is far worse in Pathfinder as you get smacked when you stand up or if you stay prone your AC and atks are at -4. As a spell caster you have far more limited resources and so you have to be careful with them, however cantrips and orisons are at will so you should always have something to do. You are not forced to fall back on drawing a crossbow. Spells are far more powerful, many of them can end a battle instantly. In general I find battles in Pathfinder far more boring. Thankfully they tend to end more quickly.

I'm not sure how I feel about skills. Each style has its charm. PF, more rigid but more extensive, 4e, simple but more free. In PF there are things you simply can't do if you don't have training. Your dumb orc fighter can't remember an old legend that his mother use to tell him unless he has invested a skill point. In 4e anyone can have a shot at something like that even with 8 intelligence. Who knows, you could roll a 20. In PF, you can't roll. Which makes having knowledge of History more important/special in a way ... but ... I'm not sure which I prefer.

I think the jump between alive and dead can happen far more quickly in PF. Eg. Our groups barbarian failed a save vs Will against a spell called Murderous Command. This meant he came over to me, the spindly wizard and in 1 hit reduced me to 0 hps from full. I saw my life flash before my eyes. This is not a criticism. I enjoyed that greatly and lead to some great character/relationship building between our two characters.

Those are the things which stand out the most to me. That said I enjoy both systems. I'm sure if you are feeling like you want a change of game system you will very much enjoy PF.

 

[pauljathome]

While I'm at it, and rather than start a new thread over in the Pathfinder forum, which Adventure Paths do people like the best? Which are generally considered to be good, ok, duds? Looking over these descriptions, the ones I'm most drawn to are Rise of the Runelords, Legacy of Fire, Serpent's Skull, and maybe Kingmaker; actually, Serpent's Skull is somewhat similar to the idea I was working on anyways, so maybe it makes sense to try that.

It seems that an Adventure Path would be a good way for a new Pathfinder DM to be hand-held (somewhat) through the process.

Note : I haven't played all the paths. This is largely based on the research that I did a few months ago when starting up my current Crimson Throne campaign.

The Adventure Paths are generally seen by most people as fair at the very least, generally good or better.

Peoples opinions vary but none of the Paths seem to be universally disliked.

Note that Rise of the Runelords was NOT written for Pathfinder but instead for 3.5. Not a huge issue (especially since various on-line conversions exist) but worth pointing out.

Kingmaker seems almost universally loved IF you want what is very much a sandbox campaign.

But your best bet is probably to just play the campaign that appeals to you most when looking at the summaries in the paizo shop. The player handbooks for all the campaigns are available for free, these also give a good feel for the campaign.

 

[Saint Mac]

Thanks @Saint Mac , that's very helpful. If anything it confirms both what I would hope for and fear from switching to Pathfinder: I'd hope for a more "classic D&D" game with tons of customizable options and some of the sacred cows that I miss (e.g. spell lists), but what I fear is more complexity and confusion for players--most of whom are in their late 30s/early 40s and hadn't played D&D since the late 80s or early 90s when we started playing 4E a couple years ago, so they're not familiar with 3E.

I am also a bit leery about Pathfinder prep time and would want to look into ways to "4Eify" it a bit. Obviously there's no Character Builder or Monster Builder, but are there any other tools to get around prep time? I'd rather spend my prep time world-building, coming up with plot hooks, drawing maps and such than creating intricate NPCs and monster stat blocks.

I'm going to hunker down and read through the Beginner's Box.

Lol. Well I'm 43 and if I can learn it, heck, anyone can if that's what they want to do.

Ah, evil prep time. I would point you to Hero Lab for quick builds of monsters, NPCs, and for your players' characters. Its soooooo worth the money (and not alot of it to boot)! You might want to grab the first two books of Kingmaker, it will help give you ideas for your world and how you might allow players to REALLY be part of its function.

I bought the Beginner's box when it came out so that I could show my 11 yr old daughter how to play. Bet you will feel at home with it as it has, imho, a 4E feel. The rules and such are stat-blocked so that will help you make a transition. Rules such as Oportunity Attacks and such are not in there so that people can just start playing. Is it identical to rolling up a character from the Core HB? No. Is it going to give you and your group a place to start, yep! If you should decide to continue, then start with the Core at that time. It will "feel" a bit different only at the beginning because the starter box was to introduce people to RPGs in general as well.

Have a great time!