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

[Ahnehnois]

I play a heavily houseruled 3.5, using some PF stuff (like combat maneuvers and sorcerer bloodlines) along with TB, UA, and various other rules.

I don't feel the need to change to PF. I have an established group who knows the rules; if I were trying to recruit outsiders I'd consider the learning curve more of an issue. That said, there are plenty of reasons to stick with 3.5. I have a ton of material, and I'd rather port stuff into 3.5 than convert all of it to PF. PF made some nice changes (CMB #1) but didn't really fix any other fundamental flaws of 3.5 (magic item dependency, complexity and power of high-level casters, etc.) which I've sometimes done better with fixing myself. Some PF changes I don't like (rage powers are ridiculous, making all XP components into gold is better but not good). The parts of PF I do like are available for free, so I see no need to buy a new expensive book line that I'll barely use (I do like Paizo as a company and have bought old 3.5 stuff from their site when possible).

Most importantly, my game isn't broken. All in all, I think PF is probably a modest upgrade over 3.5 and thus possibly the best fantasy rpg out there (maybe TB and FantasyCraft competing). I don't think any of those are better than my houserules, so change things that work fine?

 

[Windjammer]

I'm of the minority opinion that Pathfinder is not an improvement over 3.5 at all. I appreciate the occasional nod to Monte Cook's houserules (canonized in his varios Malhavoc Books of Might), but the package deal strikes me as thoroughly unattractive. I never understood where power attack was (apparently) too overpowered or why combat maneuvers' success chance was way too high. Here as elsewhere Pathfinder tried to fix problems I never had.

On the other hand, Pathfinder's wording of extant rules is not always an improvement over 3.5 either. Grapple isn't simplified, it still (?) requires
three flow charts.
Then again, Pathfinder introduced new rules and worded them so poorly that even small entries like the Dazzling Display feat required their own FAQ after release, which is to me one indication of many that the designer competence at Paizo which was never great during the era of its Dragon print run hasn't improved drastically enough to hold a candle to 3.5.

Finally, the change to canonical D&D elements like turning undead didn't make sense to me either. I'd have been happy for PF to offer some of these "improvements" as alternate class features, but kicking them out of the game makes the end product poorer than 3.5 in my opinion.

The book is pretty though. I always wince at the ugly art of my 3.5 books. However, in the end, I remain unconvinced that Pathfinder is in any regard a superior rules system.

 

[El Mahdi]

I didn't switch to 4E because, despite some truly genius parts, it felt too constraining yet unrealistically powerful. To me, it comes across as cartoonish. There are too many things, especially a lot of powers, where the fluff and the crunch just don't jive. And as much as people say, you can just change the fluff, I don't want to put that kind of effort into a game that really isn't mechanically what I want anyways.

The above reasons are some of the very same reasons I didn't switch to Pathfinder.

I understand the design philosophy, and it wasn't bad. Balance the classes while remaining backwards compatible, clean up some of the mechanics while remaining backwards compatible, eliminate or mitigate save or die effects while remaining backwards compatible. I think they achieved their goals quite well, and made a good version of 3.5E.

My main problem with Pathfinder is that the classes were balanced by increasing the relative power of weaker classes. To me, that was counterintuitive. Kind of like solving the Nuclear Proliferation problem by making sure everyone has Nukes.

What I liked about 3E when it first came out was that finally I could model characters that I couldn't in previous editions. Characters I had read about or seen...realistic characters. But even 3E wasn't perfect for me, just closer than any system ever had been. As time went along, and splat books were added with all of their extra Feats and Prestige Classes, the inevitable power creep, and the escalation of all of this even more with 3.5E, D&D started becoming too cartoonish for me. It veered away, significantly, from what made it so perfect for me. Because Pathfinder fixed balance issues by increasing relative power levels, that cartoonishness was actually increased for me, rather than dialed back. Also, things like non-spellcasting Rangers and Bards were not addressed.

I think the changes could have been much more significant, and still maintained backwards compatibility. But, Pathfinder was made with an incredible amount of player feedback. It's the game that those players want. I think Paizo did an incredible job with it, just as I feel WotC did an incredible job with 4E. It's just that neither one do it for me.

So, my answer was to take the advice of those who say: "just change the parts you don't like". But, I stuck with the mechanical chasis I like the best...that was 3.5E. I know that sounds contrary to what I said above about 3.5E, but the only part I've kept is the skeleton and the combat mechanics. Everything else, Classes, Races, Feats, Skills, Special Attacks, Equipment, Magic...I've reworked completely from the ground up. I'm not done yet, but I'm getting there. Probably about 60% done.

I've definitely included some of the concepts that 4E introduced, and some that Pathfinder also espoused. Such as increased Hit Points at first level, front loading abilities at 1st level, healing mechanics, Skill Challenges, Action Points, even Powers to a small extent. My design philosophy is: rework everything with realism and simplicity as benchmarks, and in equal measure. My inspirations and reference material has been Galloglaich's Codex Martialis, Pathfinder, 4E, Tolkien, Wheel of Time RPG and books, Willow, and heavy reliance on Trailblazers analysis of the 3E chasis.

So, my game is what I like to call 3.5E D&D; Distilled, Revised, and Improved...

But, I still like Paizo adventures, and occasional 4E products. However, I won't buy any 4E products until Older Edition products return in electronic format. I do, however, still pick up occasional Paizo products. I did purchase both the core 4E books, and the pdf of Pathfinder.

 

[Aeolius]

I'm quite content with 3.5e/d20 ruleset, coupled with the World of Greyhawk setting. There's plenty of life left in the 'ol girl.

My current campaign centers around the oceans of Oerth and a handful of the "Mysterious Places" of the region. Switching to a different setting is not an attractive option for me.

Plus, as spare time is a precious commodity these days, I don't want to learn a new setting when the World of Greyhawk has worked fine for decades.

 

[BryonD]

I "in" Pathfinder, so I'm clearly not the focus here.

BUT,

I really don't consider Pathfinder and upgrade. I'm not sure it is even supposed to be, but either way, I don't think it it.

Mechanically, I don't think it is any better. If anything, the changes, on balance, are slightly negative, imo.

But, a lot of the changes are great for flavor and substance. Aside from the tactical difference 3X sorcerers don't end up really feeling different from Wizards. There are limitations to what could change, but the changes that were implemented in sorcerers (and Wizards as well) are great fun, imo.

I like the CMB innovation.

But a lot of other changes are just that, changes. And many of them are not for the better,

But, the awesome thing, and Paizo has vocally agreed here, is that as a core 3E system game, modifications are easy.

I use a lot of "houserules", that largely amount to using 3X versions, some Trailblazer innovations, and a few houserules of my own.

It becomes a shades of grey thing. You could call my game a 3X game with PF houserules and really not be wrong. Really, PF is the core that I'm building around right now.

And for the record, the PF rule for regeneration blows.

 

[Bullgrit]

I'm satisfied with D&D3[.5].

Bullgrit

 

[BryonD]

My main problem with Pathfinder is that the classes were balanced by increasing the relative power of weaker classes. To me, that was counterintuitive. Kind of like solving the Nuclear Proliferation problem by making sure everyone has Nukes.

What I liked about 3E when it first came out was that finally I could model characters that I couldn't in previous editions. Characters I had read about or seen...realistic characters. But even 3E wasn't perfect for me, just closer than any system ever had been. As time went along, and splat books were added with all of their extra Feats and Prestige Classes, the inevitable power creep, and the escalation of all of this even more with 3.5E, D&D started becoming too cartoonish for me. It veered away, significantly, from what made it so perfect for me. Because Pathfinder fixed balance issues by increasing relative power levels, that cartoonishness was actually increased for me, rather than dialed back. Also, things like non-spellcasting Rangers and Bards were not addressed.

This is a valid point.

I would counter that low level was a complaint against 3X and players frequently wanted to get to the "sweet spot". I think they made high levels better, but really did a great job of shoring up the early levels.

Obviously, if you love 3E at 1st, then this isn't going to work for you. I never thought it was that bad, but I'm in the middle and can see merit to both sides.

On the other hand, if you find negatives in the more cartoony parts of the game, then things like bloodlines, which I was praising in the previous post, are only going to make that worse.

Pathfinder can, without question make perfect swords and sorcery style characters and actions. But, it doesn't remotely assume that S&S is the only genre trope present. For an entire campaign to fit the feel, huge chunks of the game need to go out the window. Which is fine.

 

[Noumenon]

People on Enworld convinced me the system hosed fighters and helped wizards. I took that as a criticism even though the only effective wizard spell in my personal experience is fireball.

I also encountered CMD when it was 15 + modifiers and I didn't like that since I thought it was escaping grapples, not making them, that was too hard.

I also flipped open to the paladin page and saw the Bonded Weapon feature, which struck me as not fair and not making any sense. If the properties had been limited to holy, merciful, and disruption that would have been flavorful and balanced.

 

[El Mahdi]

This is a valid point.

I would counter that low level was a complaint against 3X and players frequently wanted to get to the "sweet spot". I think they made high levels better, but really did a great job of shoring up the early levels.

I agree, that's why I like front loading also. IMO, Pathfinder, 4E, and Trailblazer all got this right. In my houserules (I loosely call it houserules, in actuality I'm practically re-writing the PHB) I want to start in the sweet spot and stay in the sweet spot (kind of like a front loaded E6 or E10 game).

Obviously, if you love 3E at 1st, then this isn't going to work for you. I never thought it was that bad, but I'm in the middle and can see merit to both sides.

I probably wasn't clear about that part, I don't like 3E at 1st level. For me, the sweet spot started about 3rd to 5th, and went up to 10th. I want to stay between those points.

On the other hand, if you find negatives in the more cartoony parts of the game, then things like bloodlines, which I was praising in the previous post, are only going to make that worse.

Oh yeah...most definitely. Although, I hope nobody takes my description as being negative*. (*I don't think you are Bryon, just saying it for those who may have taken it that way.) That's just the feel it gives me. If the feel of Pathfinder, or any other game, works for you, then don't listen to me or anyone else. RPG enjoyment is a 100% subjective thing. Don't let anyone's opinion of a game change yours. Play what you like, and like what you play.

Pathfinder can, without question make perfect swords and sorcery style characters and actions. But, it doesn't remotely assume that S&S is the only genre trope present. For an entire campaign to fit the feel, huge chunks of the game need to go out the window. Which is fine.

I think Pathfinder, as well as 4E, can make any style game. They may be more hardwired for certain styles of games, but they can still be used. With some tweaking, I think you can make a game do anything you want. I'm just making my rules hardwired for the type of game I want. Once it's done, I'll never have to search or adapt again.

Of course though, I'll still play in any game, regardless of system...if it's a good group with good people.

 

[Crothian]

I don't see Pathfinder as an upgrade. I like some changes, others I don't. I felt it would be easier and it was to stay with 3e and run my campaign using those rules. They have always worked for us and the group knows and is comfortable with them.