Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5266518" data-attributes="member: 59506">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. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

Verification