Pathfinder 1E Am I ready for Pathfinder, and if not, when?

[Stormonu]

As a big fan of PF, I say play what you want; don't let yourself feel forced you need to play any particular game. If you want to try out PF, I suggest the PF beginner box or the Pathfinder Core book PDF. If you go with the beginner box, you can then use the PF SRD rules as "advanced rules" if you find it to your liking (or if you want to jump in head first, just go for the PF SRD). I suggest the PF SRD because it would be a way to dig in without having to invest $$ into the books.

 

[Andrew Ridenour]

I can attest that Pathfinder is actually relatively simple to learn. The basics are (as pointed out in the beginner box) are quite simple, and easy to follow, and the to move up into the core rulebook is a very natural progression. The Advanced Player's guide after that, and then the ultimate series (Combat, Magic, Equipment, and soon Campaign).

Pathfinder was my first system (or, at least first that I actually spent time in learning) and my group (which is learning it with me) are all quite comfortable with the system. And as mentioned, everything is available for free, in the SRD (System Reference Guide) which is a perfectly acceptable way to learn the system, and rules. (Plus, it is a bit easier to understand, as the actual rule book can get a bit daunting at times, nothing unmanageable.)

From what I've seen of 4e, its actually a bit harder to learn then PF, and if you have any prior knowledge of 3.5, pathfinder should (as most people attest) be easy to learn, since the rules are mostly the same, just a bit more streamlined.

 

[S'mon]

Well, my style of play, as far as I know, is (according to the DM's Guide) Actor/Storyteller or (going by GNS Theory) Narrativist, but yeah, going with the above advice of trying out some Pathfinder after I'm done with my projects.

I think 4e supports Dramatist play better than 3e/PF does; hence my Pemertonian Scene Framing thread. Neither really support hardcore Edwardsian Narrativism, 4e might have a slight edge because the Dramatist 'like a movie' style is closer to Narrativism than is 3e's more world-Sim approach.
IME 3e/PF is better than 4e for dungeon-based exploratory play, or possibly for wilderness exploratory play if you run the wilderness 'dungeon style' with lots of frequent, small encounters. This tails off around 11th level as PC magic (and monster power) becomes overwhelming, but it works well as a 1-10 game. Actually the Pathfinder Beginner Box is my preferred ruleset for running open sandbox campaigns.

 

[S'mon]

From what I've seen of 4e, its actually a bit harder to learn then PF...

For players, yes - creating your first 1st level PHB 4e PC is harder than creating your first 1st level Pathfinder Core Rulebook PC. OTOH when I play Pathfinder Core I'm spending a good chunk of each play session leafing through the rulebook, eg trying to work out what my spells do, whereas with 4e I can leave the book at home.

 

[pemerton]

I don't play PF, and have played only a little bit of 3E, but I would echo S'mon and others upthread - the contrast between PF and 4e isn't about "advanced" or "simple". It's about different sorts of style.

If you like the gonzo fantasy feel of 4e, with the players really engaging the system to push hard at the challenges the GM sets up, and the tactical drama around that (use of action points, use of feats, trying to time those immediate actions just right) - I think you mightn't get that in PF.

If you sometimes feel that your 4e play is a bit too abstract, or a bit too open-textured (eg what exactly is going on when an ooze gets knocked "prone"?), maybe PF will be a bit more "grounded". (I think - like I said, not my game, I'm just going on the reports of others.)

 

[Psyga315]

From what I've seen of 4e, its actually a bit harder to learn then PF

I think 4e supports Dramatist play better than 3e/PF does; hence my Pemertonian Scene Framing thread. Never really support hardcore Edwardsian Narrativism, 4e might have a slight edge because the Dramatist 'like a movie' style is closer to Narrativism than is 3e's more world-Sim approach.

Huh, these are interesting things to note. Especially with the "harder to learn" aspect, since there was a lot of hand holding in the Red Box (heck, the game pretty much makes your character for you), and I recalled having little difficulty creating my own Level 1 Character using the PHB. Though it could just be me.

As for the PSF thread... I'll have to read that some day.

 

[Andrew Ridenour]

Huh, these are interesting things to note. Especially with the "harder to learn" aspect, since there was a lot of hand holding in the Red Box (heck, the game pretty much makes your character for you), and I recalled having little difficulty creating my own Level 1 Character using the PHB. Though it could just be me.

As for the PSF thread... I'll have to read that some day.

I haven't been able to look at the 4e Red Box, and I didn't get to use the Beginner Box to learn PF, so I'm going on reading the 4e PHB, and the PF CRB, so from that alone, PF is easier in my opinion to learn. However, the PFBB does also hold your hand through the character making process, as well as a solo adventure with that character, and then a group play, for those who want to be a DM (and it walks you through that as well.)

So, while I haven't had any experience with 4e Red Box, and learned both systems from there respective Rule Books, I have to say that PF is a lot simpler to learn, and with the shear number of expanding books (which you can, for the most part read for free, as mentioned) to read over and learn how to operate a lot of other classes, spells, feats, and other things. (Of course, this isn't to say that 4e doesn't have a lot of expanding material, because it does... I know, I've seen it. Not read it, but seen it.)

For players, yes - creating your first 1st level PHB 4e PC is harder than creating your first 1st level Pathfinder Core Rulebook PC. OTOH when I play Pathfinder Core I'm spending a good chunk of each play session leafing through the rulebook, eg trying to work out what my spells do, whereas with 4e I can leave the book at home.

And as for remembering spells, and feats, that is just something that comes with time, and experience. I know PF spells and feats, because I play PF. You know 4e spells, because you play 4e. After awhile, you know the stuff, and you don't need the book as much as you use to, if at all. (Though, we still keep the book near our table, just to be on the safe side of things.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Really, there's very little reason not to give it a spin. Do it. Try it. Tell us what you think when you're done.

4e's a solid game. PF is a solid game. Variety is awesome.

The only thing to be prepared for in PF is to use your DMing chops to make rules if you don't have time to look up the rules, because PF can get a lot more detailed and fiddly in places than 4e does. I would use 4e without a Monster Manual, for instance...I would not use PF that way.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm running a PF game now, after doing 4e for a while. I must say, I missed weird wizard spells that mess up my plots; they're fun and make me think on the fly.

I wish it wasn't so easy to make a shi**y character, though. A player of mine wanted to be a monk/psion, because that sounds cool. Then she spent about a week looking at dozens of different niche character options to actually make it worthwhile.

 

[Psyga315]

Really, there's very little reason not to give it a spin. Do it. Try it. Tell us what you think when you're done.

I will, though not right now. I am going to have to figure out where to post my thoughts on it, though I'm thinking, when I make my ten posts (and I'm close), of using the Blog feature for that... if that's allowed (I might need to make a thread asking people what to do with blogs or something)