Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5267325" data-attributes="member: 58416">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.</blockquote>

Verification