-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?
- Thread starter AdmundfortGeographer
- Start date
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
That's why stating the design goals up front is so important. I am glad to help you redirect your gaming dollars to products that you will enjoy.
There is no doubt that Trailblazer caters to a specific style of play, and attempts to answer a specific set of complaints.
In addition to my own play experience, most of the complaints were pulled from here at ENworld, both over the course of the years I've been a member here and (at least towards the kickoff of the process) from this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/222801-3-5e-what-really-needed-fixing.html
meomwt
First Post
We still play 3.5E.
The reason is mainly inertia: most of the group don't know sqauat about PF, they aren't as Forum/ Internet RPGeeky as I am
. And most don't have a ton of spare cash (I know I don't) with which to buy new product.
So, our trusty PHB's and splatbooks get dusted off and we carry on with the old rules.
And, to be honest, these rules do us fine. They allow good customisation of characters, even within the same class, so that PC's can be unique and flavourful. Feats and skills allow the martial classes to go their own way, whilst clerical domains bring different powers to the worshipful. And, as always, mages proved that skinning a cat does not always involve a knife.
PF does just the same, but with more HP and an improved Grapple mechanic.
That said, I have added Trailblazer Action Points, Encounter Design (XP Budget system similar to 4E) and XP Awards, Skill Challenges a la 4E and 1hp minions based on an old post somewhere on ENWorld.
And as far as 3.5E goes, I have a ton of stuff to run for the game which will take years to accomplish, and I don't have time to do conversions!
The reason is mainly inertia: most of the group don't know sqauat about PF, they aren't as Forum/ Internet RPGeeky as I am
. And most don't have a ton of spare cash (I know I don't) with which to buy new product. So, our trusty PHB's and splatbooks get dusted off and we carry on with the old rules.
And, to be honest, these rules do us fine. They allow good customisation of characters, even within the same class, so that PC's can be unique and flavourful. Feats and skills allow the martial classes to go their own way, whilst clerical domains bring different powers to the worshipful. And, as always, mages proved that skinning a cat does not always involve a knife.
PF does just the same, but with more HP and an improved Grapple mechanic.
That said, I have added Trailblazer Action Points, Encounter Design (XP Budget system similar to 4E) and XP Awards, Skill Challenges a la 4E and 1hp minions based on an old post somewhere on ENWorld.
And as far as 3.5E goes, I have a ton of stuff to run for the game which will take years to accomplish, and I don't have time to do conversions!
Well, I didn't exactly 'skip' 4e, it's just that my group decided we wanted to finish our 3e campaign first. We did a test run of 4e and it went pretty well.
There's two main reasons we didn't migrate to Pathfinder:
1) It's too late. We didn't want to use a new ruleset. We were 'almost' done anyway. The group was about level 13 when Pathfinder was released. The campaign was planned to end at approximately level 15 (i.e. about a year at our pace).
2) It doesn't really solve our problems. Pathfinder changes a lot of stuff. This includes lots of stuff not requiring change (which is funny since that is one of the things 4e-haters complain about regarding 4e!). I also dislike the power-up everything received. I haven't playtested Pathfinder, but I suspect it would make play even more fiddly in the level range we're playing. It looks like it might be more fun than 3e at lower levels, though.
Now, had I known about Trailblazer earlier, that might have been something I'd have considered...
There's two main reasons we didn't migrate to Pathfinder:
1) It's too late. We didn't want to use a new ruleset. We were 'almost' done anyway. The group was about level 13 when Pathfinder was released. The campaign was planned to end at approximately level 15 (i.e. about a year at our pace).
2) It doesn't really solve our problems. Pathfinder changes a lot of stuff. This includes lots of stuff not requiring change (which is funny since that is one of the things 4e-haters complain about regarding 4e!). I also dislike the power-up everything received. I haven't playtested Pathfinder, but I suspect it would make play even more fiddly in the level range we're playing. It looks like it might be more fun than 3e at lower levels, though.
Now, had I known about Trailblazer earlier, that might have been something I'd have considered...
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
A little off topic, but I just wanted to say that like Pathfinder, a Trailblazer game isn't my cup of tea either. But, the analysis you guys did of the chasis...Man, those charts are worth their weight in gold to a tinkerer. The information in those charts is invaluable in keeping my houserules balanced. Thanks for the work you guys did on that, and thanks for publishing that book!
I play 4E primarily, but am still involved in one or two ongoing 3.5 games and occasionally go back to it. None of them have moved to Pathfinder, though.
Pathfinder does seem an improvement on 3.5, certainly. But it doesn't fix some of the major problem areas of the system, and introduces a few new issues of its own. It would still be a better system to run, I suspect, if I was starting from scratch...
...but I'm not. And thus it isn't worth investing the money in the books, and the time in learning the system (and having to figure out which existing 3.5 content is compatible, and which needs to be updated). Basically, it isn't that I feel it is a worse system, just not enough of an improvement to be worth the cost and effort of upgrading.
Pathfinder does seem an improvement on 3.5, certainly. But it doesn't fix some of the major problem areas of the system, and introduces a few new issues of its own. It would still be a better system to run, I suspect, if I was starting from scratch...
...but I'm not. And thus it isn't worth investing the money in the books, and the time in learning the system (and having to figure out which existing 3.5 content is compatible, and which needs to be updated). Basically, it isn't that I feel it is a worse system, just not enough of an improvement to be worth the cost and effort of upgrading.
jedavis
First Post
Currently running heavily-modified 3.0 with rules borrowed from PF and TB (and a dash of Iron Heroes, actually).
From 3.5:
Barbarian, Ranger, Monk
Darkness
Haste
Ray of Enfeeblement
From TB:
Class modifications (except Druid, which I'm still tinkering with on and off. Currently looking at stealing PF's shapeshifting spells, putting them on the Druid list, and giving Druids bonus slots and readies)
Unified spellcasting
Combat reactions
Some feats
From PF:
Races (mostly)
Turning
Item creation
Cleave (probationary pending playtesting)
0th-level spells at will (and the corollary Cure Minor -> Stabilize change)
From IH:
Skill groups (we reduced SP/level, but assigned classes appropriate groups)
So, why not PF? Probably because our tendency is to assimilate systems we like rather than to adopt them wholesale. Their setting is OK, but nothing to get really excited about. Not a huge fan of the APs (not due to lack of quality, but because they're too linear in structure), so that's no selling point. We never had trouble with grappling, so upgrades to that went unnoticed.
From 3.5:
Barbarian, Ranger, Monk
Darkness
Haste
Ray of Enfeeblement
From TB:
Class modifications (except Druid, which I'm still tinkering with on and off. Currently looking at stealing PF's shapeshifting spells, putting them on the Druid list, and giving Druids bonus slots and readies)
Unified spellcasting
Combat reactions
Some feats
From PF:
Races (mostly)
Turning
Item creation
Cleave (probationary pending playtesting)
0th-level spells at will (and the corollary Cure Minor -> Stabilize change)
From IH:
Skill groups (we reduced SP/level, but assigned classes appropriate groups)
So, why not PF? Probably because our tendency is to assimilate systems we like rather than to adopt them wholesale. Their setting is OK, but nothing to get really excited about. Not a huge fan of the APs (not due to lack of quality, but because they're too linear in structure), so that's no selling point. We never had trouble with grappling, so upgrades to that went unnoticed.
I'm perhaps not the typical sort of gamer that's expected to answer: I'm not a "one game" kind of person.
I played a goodly amount of 3e. The 4e came out, I bought the core rules and tried them out a bit. It's okay, and I'll play it, but nothing in it fires me up all that much. Lacking any specific reason to use 4e, if I were to run generic fantasy, I'd probably use 3e instead.
Someone gave me the Pathfinder core rulebook as a gift. Some nice stuff in there - if I run D&D, I won't be surprised if I steal some Pathfinder elements. But overall, Pathfinder is not sufficiently different from 3e to merit pouring money into what would be the third set of books in the same basic ruleset (3e, 3.5e, Pathfinder) at this time.
I am not particularly concerned about having ongoing support for my games, and I expect that's a major portion of the Pathfinder draw. So, it fails to grip me on one of its major selling points.
I played a goodly amount of 3e. The 4e came out, I bought the core rules and tried them out a bit. It's okay, and I'll play it, but nothing in it fires me up all that much. Lacking any specific reason to use 4e, if I were to run generic fantasy, I'd probably use 3e instead.
Someone gave me the Pathfinder core rulebook as a gift. Some nice stuff in there - if I run D&D, I won't be surprised if I steal some Pathfinder elements. But overall, Pathfinder is not sufficiently different from 3e to merit pouring money into what would be the third set of books in the same basic ruleset (3e, 3.5e, Pathfinder) at this time.
I am not particularly concerned about having ongoing support for my games, and I expect that's a major portion of the Pathfinder draw. So, it fails to grip me on one of its major selling points.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
But you don't have to buy anything to play PF...
Except for those that need a 'dead tree version' you don't ever have to buy the Core books for PF, they're free online at Paizo, d20pfsrd.com and at a number of other sites - the PRD is complete with everything (as everything in PF is OGC.) Even the Bestiary and APG new classes are online as well. Now some of the Golarian stuff isn't necessarily OGC, so that and the APs is all you'll be spending money on - if you need the setting. As long as you have an active internet connection while you're playing tabletop, you can always refer to the online source. Better yet, for 9.99 you can buy full PDFs of every book that they've produced so far.
Either way, no reason to buy a whole new set of books - this applies Umbran's point as well.
GP
Except for those that need a 'dead tree version' you don't ever have to buy the Core books for PF, they're free online at Paizo, d20pfsrd.com and at a number of other sites - the PRD is complete with everything (as everything in PF is OGC.) Even the Bestiary and APG new classes are online as well. Now some of the Golarian stuff isn't necessarily OGC, so that and the APs is all you'll be spending money on - if you need the setting. As long as you have an active internet connection while you're playing tabletop, you can always refer to the online source. Better yet, for 9.99 you can buy full PDFs of every book that they've produced so far.
Either way, no reason to buy a whole new set of books - this applies Umbran's point as well.
GP
Similar Threads
