D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?

[AdmundfortGeographer]

We've seen more than a few posts over time inquiring why folks didn't upgrade to 4e, what would it take to upgrade to 4e, and other variations on that theme. Many responses come back that Pathfinder fits better, or products Paizo offers fit their itch better.

Yet there are some D&D 3.x gamers who have not upgraded to either Pathfinder or 4e.

Now, this may prove to be a short, little trafficked thread, but would anyone who has remained with D&D 3.x like to use this time to explain why they have not upgraded to Pathfinder for their 3.x gaming?

Please try not to stray into fields of edition wars.

[Edit] Inspired by haakon1's thread here.

 

[scruffygrognard]

It didn't clean up a lot of the bits that I found were mucking up my 3.5 games, particularly at higher levels. At the same times, it was too similar to 3.5 to warrant the switch.

At the same time, I'd LOVE to see the folks at Paizo come out with a cleaned-up and streamlined version of Pathfinder. Something akin to Star Wars Saga Edition fused with Basic D&D rules.

 

[Wicht]

Those who post, would you mind sharing what you do play instead if you don't play either 4e or Pathfinder.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Those who post, would you mind sharing what you do play instead if you don't play either 4e or Pathfinder.

Sure. I'm playing in two D&D 3.5 campaigns (set in the Forgotten Realms and Ptolus) one heavily modified Castles & Crusades game (set in Greyhawk).

 

[RangerWickett]

There were a bunch of changes I wanted to see to the 3.5 ruleset, to go more in the direction of simplicity and ease of DM planning. My initial 4e impressions weren't great, because I didn't like the aesthetic of the core books, so I was really tempted to go with Paizo. But Pathfinder, for all its glorious flavor and wondrous art direction, instead got more complicated.

4e is just easier for me to run, even though the player character design doesn't appeal to me and the art (at least in early books) didn't inspire me.

Which is why I mine Pathfinder books for ideas, but play 4e.

 

[jaerdaph]

There were a bunch of changes I wanted to see to the 3.5 ruleset, to go more in the direction of simplicity and ease of DM planning. My initial 4e impressions weren't great, because I didn't like the aesthetic of the core books, so I was really tempted to go with Paizo. But Pathfinder, for all its glorious flavor and wondrous art direction, instead got more complicated.

4e is just easier for me to run, even though the player character design doesn't appeal to me and the art (at least in early books) didn't inspire me.

Which is why I mine Pathfinder books for ideas, but play 4e.

That's totally cool, but this is a "Why I Stuck with 3.5e over Pathfinder" thread.

 

[WarlockLord]

Pathfinder didn't change enough, and fixed no essential issues with 3.5. To balance the casters and fighters... they nerfed power attack, but gave casters a metric ton of features. Not worth my money, plus everyone I know plays 3.5.

4e is universally loathed in my area.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now, this may prove to be a short, little trafficked thread, but would anyone who has remained with D&D 3.x like to use this time to explain why they have not upgraded to Pathfinder for their 3.x gaming?

I like Pathfinder. I really do. I have the base book.

But

1. it isn't perfect, and its changes aren't 100% what I'd call an improvement or upgrade.
2. there are other excellent 3.X games out there, like True20, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Fantasy Craft, Midnight 2Ed and of course, the original 3.5Ed- no clear winners.
3. in many ways- and like most other good 3.X games- its similar enough to the original that I can't find enough people willing to invest more money in "a game they already own."

Because of this (and many other reasons besides), Pathfinder- along with its aforementioned cousins- remain primarily a source of HRs or campaign tweaks as opposed to supplanting 3.5Ed as our main game.

 

[Dandu]

Pathfinder's not better, it's just different.

Not that different, mind you, which is why I don't see the point in switching over.

 

[mhensley]

Pathfinder's not better, it's just different.

Not that different, mind you, which is why I don't see the point in switching over.

Yep, me too. My 3.5 books are still in very good condition. I may up end buying some Kingmaker stuff from them though.