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

[Keefe the Thief]

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

I could be wrong but i think those who said they didn´t want to buy new books actually want to buy and use books when playing D&D. So, if they want to play Pathfinder, they need to buy books.

 

[Dandu]

I do not even feel motivated to look at the Pathfinder SRD. Mainly because having two similar rulesets in my head, one of which is less of an 'upgrade' than a sidestep, seems unecessary.

 

[Umbran]

Either way, no reason to buy a whole new set of books - this applies Umbran's point as well.

It applies to me only if I find working off electronic copy reasonable for most uses - which I don't. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to *require* that I have a laptop to run my gaming session.

Electronic is acceptable when I find the gaming material unique and compelling, and other formats are not available (for example, Classic Deadlands). But since it is so close to 3.x, Pathfinder fails that test.

 

[Woas]

Don't really enjoy D&D anymore at its fundamental levels. So... no real motivation to play either.

I am also not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' artwork. At all. So, that doesn't help either.

 

[gamerprinter]

I guess I'm spoiled compared to most...

It applies to me only if I find working off electronic copy reasonable for most uses - which I don't. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to *require* that I have a laptop to run my gaming session.

Electronic is acceptable when I find the gaming material unique and compelling, and other formats are not available (for example, Classic Deadlands). But since it is so close to 3.x, Pathfinder fails that test.

Actually, I totally agree that you need at least one Core Rules in book form for a tabletop gaming group (I'm the guy with the only Core handbook in our group) and I'm definitely picking up the Advanced Players Guide - but that's it for now, the rest of my PF books are PDF only. Plus some LPJ and Rite Publishing materials as PDF only.

I only suggested that it wasn't required and there is a free work-around in the form of online sources or PDFs, instead of having to buy books, but I agree I wouldn't do it without at least the Core as a book at the table.

I guess I'm spoiled compared to most people out there, in that I run a digital print shop (I'm Gamerprinter, afterall) so I print all my PDFs to B/W then spiral bind them with clear plastic covers. In fact all my LPJ and Rite publishing material is in one 'book'. I print only the pages from the Bestiary that I need for a given gaming session, then keep those prints and am slowing building the Bestiary one session at a time, until most of it is printed. While I charge $.15 per two sided b/w print for somebody else, the cost for me is about a nickel a page. I just eat that price for my hobby - no big deal.

It was just a suggestion...

GP

 

[Desdichado]

I'm still smarting from the change from 3e to 3.5, honestly. That seemed like too much too soon to fix too little, and change a heck of a lot of stuff that was fine.

From 3.5 to Pathfinder was even more of that. I've more or less migrated to 3.5 (although I still haven't bought a PHB or DMG more recent than 3e, because I can use online SRDs to look at the specific parts I need.) I mostly didn't see any reason to go through what is, basically, another change just like that of 3e to 3.5.

Also, the goal of backwards compatability wasn't held to in ways that I thought useful. The balance level for all classes and races were reset; therefore, I can't use 3.5 classes and races with Pathfinder classes and races without tweaking them manually. That's not backwards compatible.

Also, if anything, Pathfinder seems to have made a number of changes that further emphasized some of the things that I already didn't like much about 3.5 rather than fixing them. Things like the power level, prevalence of magic, discrete rule subsystems, etc. seem to be more common in Pathfinder than in 3.5, if that's possible. Since I already play 3.5 pretty fast and loose with a hefty dose of GM adjudication replacing encyclopediac rules knowledge, that wasn't really what I was looking for.

That said, I did houserule the CMB/CMD system, and the skill list truncation from Pathfinder into my 3.5 games. But I also took some houserules from Trailblazer and integrated them into my 3.5 game too, including combat reactions and additional action point usages (I also made up some of my own new action point rules for that matter.) My vaguely 3.5 Frankensystem also includes E6, a bunch of alternate classes and races, and a few other changes for good measure.

And I do like the Golarion setting quite a bit. Although it's starting to feel a bit too "D&Dish" to me. Ironically, one of the things I loved about it when it was newer is that it felt like D&D did back when it was still pretty new and the sword & sorcery influence was more front and center, and the latent D&Disms hadn't been so thoroughly entrenched. I feel like it's quickly starting to get too "D&Dified" if that makes any sense.

Because I'm a fan of the setting, I've been pretty exposed to the system in out of context and ad hoc ways in more recent setting books. Plus, I did buy the pdfs of the main rulebook and the bestiary. Heck, for $10 a piece, they were worth it for the art alone, even if I never read them cover to cover. Which, honestly, I probably won't ever come close to doing.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't do PF organized play, but from what I understand in that branch of PF Golarian, it is very much sword and sorcery rather high adventure, which would feel more old school than the later editions.

I don't do Golarian either, as I am a developer, and I've always home-brewed for the last 30+ years. I did play some Greyhawk in the earliest days, and bought the Gray box 2e FR boxed set (as well as Menzobarranzan and 2e Ravenloft), but apart from those, I've only used home-brewed settings, which are heavily sword and sorcery flavored anyway. I don't need published settings, except for my own.

GP

PS: I actually arrived at 3.5 late, as was still playing 2e until about 6 years ago. I saw 3.0 in the bookstores, but 'silly me' I thought, "oh look, they're making new stuff for the "not AD&D" but the older, simpler D&D again. Since I never looked inside the covers, it never dawned on me at the time, that this was in fact a replacement for AD&D 2e! When joined 3.5, one of the players had almost 100 3.5 splats, so I only bought the PH, PH2, DMG and Lords of Madness from 3.5 (so I missed the whole 3.0 to 3.5 fiasco...)

 

[Desdichado]

Oh, sure... I actually can't really run in published settings very well. But I do love them as great sources of elements I can steal.

 

[amerigoV]

For the record, I feel that Pathfinder and D&D 4e are side-steps, not upgrades. They are different game then my current one. It doesn't make them "better", just different.

This is my position as well. 3.5 is just fine for me as a player. As a GM, it was choking the life out of me (prep time). 4e is better in this regard, but most players I have encountered are not thrilled by the game. I'll play 4e, but I can take it or leave it.

On Pathfinder per se: 3.5 pissed me off because it fiddled with stuff with only modest gains. I really am not up for going through it yet again with Pathfinder.


I switched to Savage Worlds. That system really does what I want as both player and GM. Plus, after the $10 investment for the core system (that is player side and GM side), every $ I spend on SW stuff is honest to gosh new ideas and concepts. Anything from playing fantasy (some cool worlds beyond generic fantasy like Sundered Skies) to WWII (both normal and "weird war"), post apocalyptic, future, 1889, etc.


So if I go to Wizards and pay $90, I am buying "yet another fighter" and the newest edition of an orc. If I go to Pathfinder and pay $90, I am buying...yet another fighter and orc. Wizards is recycling everything from 2nd (Darksun) and 3rd edition (every class/PRC name/monster). By all accounts, the 4e modules are pretty weak, so even that is not worth picking up and converting.

Now Paizo has some other great stuff. I bought the Pathfinder worldbook. I would get the APs, but a buddy of mine is running them so I do not get them out of respect for his campaign. So I have not problem with them, but I do not need their system to game. Its just not worth the bang for the buck.

So big picture - I really do not want "yet another fighter and orc" for $90. I want interesting new material*. Christ, even WOW gives out some new content between major expansions... (pointing at you, Wizards, not Paizo).

 

[sjmiller]

As for Trailblazer, I find I disagree with just about every single design statement they made in the free DM's Day product, so I do not think I will ever purchase it.

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.

You know, I wish more game designers would be more forthcoming with their design goals. Because I knew ahead of time your design goals with Trailblazer, I knew that the product was not meant for me. Stating up front the style of game you are presenting is what a good DM does, and I would like to see it happen with game designers as well.