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

[Theo R Cwithin]

Mainly purely practical reasons:
No PF group, so no need for it at the moment.
I aim for lower levels, and 3.5 is fine for that.
Trailblazer fixes most of the things that bother me about 3.5, the rest I fix myself.
I prefer dead trees for core rules, and I can't justify paying for it at the moment. (*sigh* too bad soft covers aren't a default in the industry )


That said, I'm certainly interested in PF. It's power boost might be a better match for a couple campaigns I have in mind; and I'll definitely buy into if/when I get into a group that's using it.

 

[Almacov]

I have a shelf just bursting with 3.5 books.

Pathfinder was just different enough to cause compatibility nuisances with the material I have, but not different enough to be intriguing to the point of justifying a new game.
(I also dislike the art style, but that's not really a factor.)

So right now my group uses both 3.5 and 4e.

 

[Uder]

Interesting especially since I ran two higher level encounters last night under Pathfinder. And it struck me that PF monsters are much better designed that their 3.5 counterparts... or to put it like this: the organization of information (statblocks) and special abilities work better.

Case in point: 3.5 Glabrezu vs Pathfinder Glabrezu

Both statblocks are legible and user friendly, however when running both creatures, 3.5 attacks and abilities begin to require additional operations (like recalculating primary vs secondary attacks) to greater extent than Pathfinder (only Pathfinder version of Power attack is a bit awkward, as it requires knowledge of actual BAB). Also, as soon as Glabrezu makes that grab, the 3.5 begins to heave and puff under stress (3.5? light weapons? grab performed with a single set of extremities?) whereas under Pathfinder it is simpler (either full grab and standard action to maintain or appropriate penalty and only a pair of extremities engaged).

I don't get it. From what I'm reading the rules for PF Grab and 3.5 Improved Grab are functionally identical (and it seems the PF Glabrezu doesn't have grab, which makes the comparison sort of pointless). The rules aren't the things heaving and puffing here. To top it off that I don't see any simplification in the PF grappling rules, just different target numbers and different ways to figure them out. The PF explanation is much cleaner, though.

So, here is a request - if you have a reason to stay with 3.5, please provide us with some details. Thanks to the additional information, it will be easier to evaluate posts.

I didn't know there was going to be a test... and who is "us"?

I liked Pathfinder's initial goals to maintain compatibility and deal with problem rules. It looks like they threw that goal out the window somewhere in the beta process though. I have hundreds of dollars worth of books and PDFs as a reason to stick with 3.5. To get current with Pathfinder it would cost hundreds more, and I'd have to relearn tons of little differences in order to play the exact same game.

 

[scourger]

I never upgraded my 3.0 game to 3.5. I ran a different game in 3.5. I see no reason to "upgrade" now to either 4e or Pathfinder (PF). Since this thread is about PF specifically, I'll comment on that. Simply put, I don't need a new version of d20--especially at the same complexity level. I need a simpler version of d20. PF Basic might appeal to me, but it has to really streamline the game in ways that don't throw out all my current mastery of the d20 system. (And it needs minis or counters, too, to really sell to me; but that's a different topic).

Right now, I'm looking for easier games that are almost plug & play. I'm currently running what I consider a very light d20 game using D&D minis (DDM) and the campaign rules from the Miniatures Handbook. I really like it, but I don't think it's quite complex enough to captivate my players past this current mini-campaign (which will be about 9 sessions). If I could reprise either my 3.0 or 3.5 game using the DDM rules, I would do it. I still might if I can figure out a way to mesh using the DDM stats for the DM side (making my work a lot easier) while leaving the 3.x rules for the players (giving them the fine granularity of options that they like).

Our prior game was Savage Worlds (SW), and that GM in our group wants to return to it or run D&D or Star Wars using the SW rules. It's just more accessible. I would be using SW for my game right now except I have a built-in, simple system with DDM. PF & 4e don't make good alternatives for this style of play.

Before that, we had a 3.5 game that went about 2 years, but I only stayed in it for the beginning and the end. I took a long break in the middle. It was just too much. I didn't have the inclination to try to min/max a character from an infinite number of options (any books were allowed), and it wasn't fun to play after a time. I lost my cohort, mount and character in short order and left it for a while. I eventually picked up another lapsed player's character and ran it until the end. Eventually, the (other) players killed the DM's enthuiasm. PF or 4e won't bring this game back, either.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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?

It made too many changes I didn't like. CMB/CMD is probably the biggest.

3.5 is really very, very close to my ideal ruleset. Pathfinder could have nudged it even closer, but went too far instead.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, here is a request - if you have a reason to stay with 3.5, please provide us with some details. Thanks to the additional information, it will be easier to evaluate posts.

Like I said before

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.

 

[Orius]

Not actively playing at the moment, and I don't exactly have the money to spare on a $50 rule book I may not use. Simple reason that has nothing to do with edition warfare.

I may use PF to suppliment my own games in the future, but I'm not interested in the Golarion setting. I've always homebrewed. PF may also be useful later on if I end up not liking 4e. It's easier to run a set of rules that are in print than something out of print if the players don't have the books, unless PF/Paizo goes under or something.

 

[Starman]

There is more solid design innovation in the 188 pages of Trailblazer than in everything I own for PF.

But that is because Trailblazer was not hemmed in by a backward compatibility requirement which Paizo gave themselves for PF. Paizo wanted to tweak not redesign. Now one can, of course, argue how well they accomplished this, but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of a lack of design innovation when they were explicitly not trying to stray too far from 3.5.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

But that is because Trailblazer was not hemmed in by a backward compatibility requirement which Paizo gave themselves for PF. Paizo wanted to tweak not redesign. Now one can, of course, argue how well they accomplished this, but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of a lack of design innovation when they were explicitly not trying to stray too far from 3.5.

Of course you can to that. For the player/DM, all that counts is the finished product. Have you ever bought something because "well, they did the best they could under these self-inflicted restraints."? You buy what fits your need.

I would have loved a "compatibility-only" Pathfinder, especially having everything in one big book. What i got was a kind of easter egg hunt: "we´ve hidden 500 fiddly little changes in this book, collect them all!"

EDIT: And i hope this didn´t sound too agressive. I really do not want to start an edition war or attack people who play Pathfinder. Just shed some light on my opinion about it.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

note: This turned out longer than I thought it would when I first started typing. For the shorter version, skip to the end paragraph.


From the point of view of someone who has little experience with Pathfinder -me- it did 'fix' some of 3rd Edition's problems, but some of their fixes caused subtle changes to the game which I wasn't crazy about. I still like very much what I see of Pathfinder, and a lot of the changes are changes I like, but there are quite a few changes which were made to parts of the game which I didn't feel needed changed; as mentioned already, some of the changes that I agree were needed were done in a way different from how I would have liked them to be done.

Another major concern I have with Pathfinder is that it's not completely compatable with all of my 3rd Edition library. While I can use most 3E stuff with 3P just fine, a lot of my favorite classes (i.e. the Knight from PHB 2) and other things from later books tend to end up either being too weak (due to missing out on some of the new class features granted by PF) or too strong (due to having abilities which aren't normally present in PF.) This same concern is also why I'm wary of 4th Edition Essentials; I believe 100% that 4E and 4EE will be compatible, but whether or not there will by some wonky results created from mixing the two remains to be seen.

One major area where 4E did win me over, and why I don't think I could go back is -as I recently said in a different thread- the ideals behind 4E encounter design. I like that a lot of creatures being involved in a combat is the norm instead of the norm being a party of PCs vs 1 CR appropriate monster. Having less of a power curve between levels is also something I liked because it makes it easier for a DM to maintain some semblance of story continuity by allowing monsters to stay relevant over a broader spectrum of levels. If the story has the PCs fighting Orcs, I don't suddenly have to throw demons and devils into the mix just because the party leveled up.

I'll say that one main thing that turns me away from 4E is that it tends to cater to a different play style more than it does mine. 4E has a lot of balance, but it doesn't present very much freedom when it comes to being able to play a character who has goals outside of combat. Some people will argue that not having rules for non-combat aspects gives the ultimate freedom of DM fiat; however, I agree. True, not having rules means you can create whatever you want, so that is freedom in one sense, but it also means that there is often not a way to quantify non-combat things in terms that will be meaningful to the game or the character. As a DM, I enjoy 4E; as a player, I really have to be in the mood for the type of game 4E caters to to get into it.

I do still play 4E, but it is not my primary rpg. I mainly play it because my friends enjoy it, and I enjoy gaming with them enough that I generally enjoy sitting at the table regardless of what we're playing. I really couldn't see myself going to a store event or something like that for 4E; I used to do so when I played 3rd Edition.

While I have not bought the Pathfinder core rules, I have picked up a few of their adventures. I give kudos to whoever is writing the fluff for the game. I also feel that the Pathfinder minis line is good; I've picked some of those up.


Now days, GURPS 4th Edition is my rpg of choice. It has the strengths of D&D 4th Edition which I enjoy. There is less of a power curve between levels; mainly because GURPS does not have levels. How many creatures I want to involve in the combat depends upon what I feel is appropriate to the situation rather than being so strongly governed by something like CR. Even balance is there; a sword to the face tends to be bad news for a character regardless of whether they are a warrior or a mage.

It also has the strengths of Pathfinder/3rd Edition which I enjoy; the main one being to have more options and freedom available. If I want my barbarian to use nunchaku, I can do so without suddenly forgetting how to implement half of my powers and skills. Likewise, I have more options than simply hacking my way through everything. While 4E does have skill challenges, even that limits my options; I like all of my character's abilities being available at all times instead of having what I can do dictated by whether the DM determines we are in encounter mode, skill challenge mode, or role play mode.

In short, the system -for me- has the strengths of both versions of D&D which are important to me. On top of that, it has the added value of its own strengths.

One is that I like a slightly more ____ (don't want to say 'gritty' because it doesn't quite capture what I am trying to say) game; my influences are R. Howard's Conan, cheesy 80s Sword & Sorcery movies, and The Outlaw Josey Wales as opposed to Dragonball Z, Naruto, and similar things. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the latter group; I simply find more enjoyment among the styles of the former group. Some people feel that having too much realism in a system is bad for the story; for me, it helps the story because I can take real life aspects of something and reliably quantify those some aspects in game and get expected results without needing to think "well, ok, the physics in the game world are set up to work this way, so that means I have to change..." Even when statting out fantasy creatures, I can still start with things I know as base and work from there. Further, the combat monster steroid rage barbarian and suave linquist bard can co-exist in the same party and the system allows equal opportunity for both to shine.

Speaking of Josey Wales, it's also nice to be able to play anything from fantasy to westerns to sci fi with the same rules without worrying too much about what the rules can handle. Like any other system, there are certain ticks of the system which better enable certain genres, but, overall, it performs reliably and consistantly when running just about anything. With how open the system is, I can even run D&D or Pathfinder adventures with it (and this why I've bought some of them.) I have to do some work to convert things, but it's not nearly as complicated to do so as first glancing at GURPS might make you think. I myself was scared of how complex it appeared when I was first starting my journey away from D&D, but I've since learned that it's a pretty user friendly system once you get the hang of it.


I apologize for the long answer to a short question, but this is one of those things I've tried to give short answers to before, and my short answers don't seem to accurately represent my stance. To sum things up, I will say that I *have* upgraded to 4E - sort of; I play with my friends who play 4E even if I don't buy the products myself. I have not upgraded to Pathfinder - even if I do buy some of their products. My primary rpg is currently GURPS 4th Edition.