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

[thorian]

What's wrong with you people? Paizo just won a jazillion Ennies!

Was 3.5E D&D an option in any category of the Ennies?

 

[joela]

Was 3.5E D&D an option in any category of the Ennies?

I don't think there was an OOP category.

 

[Dice4Hire]

What's wrong with you people? Paizo just won a jazillion Ennies!

The last few years (3-4) it has mostly been who wins the second award, or which particular Paizo product wins each category, not if Paizo will win the awards.

Ok, a bit of trashing both Paizo and the Ennies, I know, but it is my impression of how it has worked out recently.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I've got a few reasons why my group still plays 3.5E and not Pathfinder. Most of the reasons are the same reasons why we haven't switched to 4E.

1. We are currently halfway through a campaign and I don't want to switch rules set in the middle of a campaign.

2. I have spent a lot of money on my 3.5E books so I want to get as much value out of them as possible.

3. My group hasn't "broken" 3.xE yet. I know there are a number of flaws with the rules, but so far my group hasn't broken the game badly enough that we think it is unplayable.

4. I have a reasonably good level of familiarity with the current rules system so it is easier to stick with this one, rather than have to learn a new rules system.

5. The Pathfinder rules don't seem to fix all of the problems that exist in the 3.xE rules set (not that I expected it to) so it doesn't seem worth the effort.

6. We're happy enough with what we've got so, as the saying goes "why fix it if it ain't broke".

To be honest, I don't see myself changing systems until 5E comes along, whenever that is. Getting through the initial release of 4E was difficult as it had that "look, new shiny" appeal, especially when everyone was talking about it. However, that has subsided for me now.

After we finish the current campaign (been running for 2 years and probably will go for another 18 months) I have at least 5 other 3.xE campaigns that I want to run. Running a couple of those campaigns (assuming they run for 2-3 years each) will probably see me through to 5E.

Olaf the Stout

 

[TheYeti1775]

Short answer. Money.

Long answer, I liked Pathfinder but I didn't find it as an upgrade. Just a 3.5 accessory add-on. Sure it made a few things different, but essentially you are playing 3.5.
So I treat it more like a Setting than I do an actual full on game system.
I allow things within reason to be used from there, but overall I tend to stick to 3.5E.
Have plenty of houserules in place to hit any trouble spots I've found or to twist the game into my own image.

While I get the Pathfinder books, I don't expect my players to run out and get them. Just like they don't expect me to run out and get a DDI/4E books when they wanted to take a stab at it with me busting my 4E cherry.

That and personally I prefer homebrew heavy worlds where the base world might be a setting book (generally a 3PP like Valus or Dawnforge) that leaves large open ended areas for the DM to flesh out to his/her heart's content.

Speaking of which I need to plan my Christmas presents out.......

 

[athos]

I tried 4th edition, it is too much like a computer game for me, which I fear is where WotC is taking D&D, so I chose not to upgrade to it. Most of my friends have converted over to it though, so I may end up trying 4.5 or 5th edition when they come out, unless of course I feel WotC has further dumbed down the game.

Why buy and learn Pathfinder, when I already have and know 3.5? Paizo wants people to because they make money that way, but what are they really offering? For me, there is very little to be gained, since I generally write my own adventures tailored to my group.

Of course, I still play in one 2nd edition game, so I have to admit, I am more interested in the game than I am the ruleset. I think a great DM can make a good game out of any ruleset, but a mediocre DM like me, needs to really know his system well, and I know all editions up to 4th very well at this point.

So until Paizo or WotC can show me they are bringing something good to the table that I want to play, I will stay with my old tried and true editions.

To each his own.

 

[Ahzad]

for me I play Fantasy Craft. Why? B/c it's the game system made for me. I've followed the Crafty Games guys since Spycraft 1st ed. loved the ruleset, to me it seemed the one ring of rulesets, the one I'd been waiting on for 30 odd years. With the campaign qualities I can play any genre I like. My heroes are heroes, I can play high fantasy or grim and gritty sword and sorcery. I can do espionage, fantasy, cthulhu, pulp, old west, sci fi. I think these guys have the right idea when it comes to rules and game balance, and it appeals to me more than any other rules out there. The only gripe I have about them is that b/c they are such a small company their releases are few and far in between but when they do release something, man do they knock it out of the park.

I've looked at Pathfinder and it's some quality work but just doesn't grab me and spark the imagination like the Crafty guys do to me.

 

[Sunseeker]

Only because I'm lazy and cheap. Personally I'm only invested in 3.x, though I've DMed 4e 'cause my friends have the materials. And Pathfinder really doesn't do much other than make me spend more money.

 

[gamerprinter]

I have Pathfinder Core - got it Amazon for $32, so that's PH for $16 and DMG for $16, for 569 pages, not including the index. It's not much money. Then the Bestiary as a PDF for $9.95, as I need it for DM prep, not at the table, I can always print any pages needed or just open the laptop in a dire emergency.

I could live that and the next Bestiary PDF in the fall for $9.95 more and I'm fairly set for only $51.90, but I do want the APG hardcover, but I've yet to order - must do that soon.

So including the next Bestiary in the late fall, and a Magic book next spring... $110 in almost 2 years. It adds up, but slowly, but unless I become totally destitute, I can swing that. (I'm sure I'll want a hardcover Magic book)

If you're like me you make your own adventures, so I don't buy the APs, though I'd like to try out some of them.

While its true being 'backwards compatible', I think this more reflects feats, spells, but a selected, allowed, unbroken mechanic that you can port from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Not that you can't port character classes, but since each PF class structure is so balanced, players feel porting 3.5 classes an imposition to the PF game system. It is a different game, but it feels just like D&D 3.5.

If you ask my players to go back to a pure 3.5 game, they'll say "no." If it was the same thing, why would it matter? Because it is a different game.

GP

 

[Voadam]

Only a tiny amount of this has actually made it in my games. I incorporated stealth instead of all the sneaking skills and Awareness instead of all the listen look and search skills.

I like the idea of a favored class. Maybe I should incorporate that as a feat for my 3.5 games.

I strongly disagree with giving the Rogue the ability to sneak attack everybody. There are good reasons for those three things to be immune to sneak attack. How do you sneak attack undead that have no organs, how do you sneak attack a column of fire that has no organs, and so on and so forth.

The sneak attack ability is primarily to reflect a knowledge of anatomy and which spots in the being's body is the weakest to attack. Things like undead, constructs, and elementals just don't have this so they are immune.

I also like the idea of no xp for crafting items. I've never really liked that, but the reason there is for some game balance.

It almost sounds like these guys are power gamers.

Spells, wildshape, and cleric armor were reduced in power a bit but most classes were increased in class abilities to bring them up to a baseline of later 3.5 classes. I think they wanted fighters to be equal to Tome of Battle warrior classes. Races were bumped slightly as well to be balanced against later more powerful PC things like the Eberron races.