Pathfinder 1E D&D4 and Pathfinder can coexist

[Aus_Snow]

It came from The Matrix. Duh!

 

[Set]

I'm seeing this type of thing happen in a lot of places anymore, not just game forums... The idea of you have to choose a side, and you either support everything that side says, or you risk letting the other side "win" has seemed to become dominant...

You see it in political or religious discussions more often, where people have internalized beliefs that they now consider to be a part of them, and thus any attack on those beliefs is considered an attack on their worldview and their sense of self.

But it's become increasingly common on the internet in *any* sort of disagreement. Any criticism of something (such as 4e) is taken as an attack on anyone who likes it. The suggestion that a certain playstyle doesn't suit one's preference is taken as a statement that anyone who likes that playstyle must be stupid or wrong or 'a fanboi,' while it's similarly impossible to say, 'Hey, I don't like that. I prefer this.' without being labeled a grognard or a 'hater' or a naysayer or whatever (and yes, even fascist or irrational or caveman or deranged or 'fatbeard').

Some people like chocolate. Some people like strawberry. The chocolate lovers don't accuse the strawberry lovers of being 'haters' and the strawberry lovers don't call the chocoholics 'fanbois,' so what's the big deal?

At the end of the day, tabletop gaming remains a small niche, and two D&D players squabbling over editions of the same darn game is like watching two entomologists get worked up over the classification of a dead bug. Ooh, nerd wars! Watch the geeks in their natural state! See the pretentious invocations of Godwin! Marvel at the Comic Book Guy and his Worst. Retcon. Ever. proclamations!

What really burns my biscuits about the whole edition wars poop-flinging-fest is that, almost without exception, the people who fling the vilest insults would then start concern-troll threads about 'the quality of discourse on the boards has gone done because of all the negativity and name-calling!'

 

[Mallus]

Pathfinder and 4e will peacefully coexist in the unpeaceable kingdom of the marketplace, with 4e getting the lion's share and Pathfinder happily taking the well-fed kitten's share. And lo, it will be good...

... and as for my shared group of players/DM's, we'll be playing 4e and 3.5. With one high-level 3.5e Eberron campaign, a slightly lower-level 3.5/AE mash-up campaign, and a new 4e campaign ready to debut, we don't have time for Pathfinder. It seems like a good product, but it's not the way I'd go for a 3.75e -- I'd use the Bo9S/skill tricks/per-encounter mechanics for all classes-- so it really doesn't offer anything to me outside of conversion issues.

 

[Set]

Paizo, I think, has one BIG thing going for them, and that's a very strong fanbase. You can see it here at EN World - Paizo has cultivated those that buy their products into a pretty strong force through business smarts and the ability to not piss off their customers. I've seen it said around here for those that have yet to play Pathfinder that Paizo can do no wrong, and I think this very ideal fanbase can work strongly in their favor.

Paizo is a smaller company. I've found, in many cases, that smaller companies, like Green Ronin and Malhavoc, are able to respond personally *much* faster than larger companies. Ask a question on the appropriate boards and you can expect an answer from Chris Pramas or Monte Cook, and the Mutants & Masterminds boards even have a specific forum for rules questions for Steve Kenson, which he responds to weekly, if not daily.

Back in the day of Sage Advice, we'd get to see a tiny selection of questions answered once a month. Online, it seemed to be even spottier, with Sage Advice being less user-submitted and more 'Skip wants to talk about Attacks of Opportunity this week.'

Given the size of Wizards operation, I'm not sure that they could ever build the reputation for fast and awesome customer service / communication that their nimbler competitors get so much (well-deserved, IMO) praise for. They'd need to hire someone to hang out on their messageboards and respond to user-submitted questions on at least a daily basis, and in a forum where it was clearly marked so that everybody could see that they were responding. With the fast pace of their boards (and the impatience of netizens in general, who expect a reply in Instant Message time, not Email time), even a single person might be so quickly outpaced by incoming questions and commentary and create the *appearance* that they 'don't care' or are 'slapping their customers in the face.'

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The real concern I have is rules mastery. I know the core 3.5 rules pretty well, and I will lose some of that rules mastery if I were to switch completely to Pathfinder. That's why I hope they provide an "at-a-glace" summary of what the rules changes are.

I think the hardest part are always the little details that change. We had similar problems when converting from 3E to 3.5. or 3E to Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or Iron Heroes.

 

[The Highway Man]

We had similar problems when converting from 3E to 3.5. or 3E to Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or Iron Heroes.

Well, with 3E and AU, it's really just a matter of whether you let the D&D PCs start with one feat more at the start of the game or one less feat for the AU PCs, and which set of feats from which book you use, really.

There are a few more minor issues, but we can count them on the fingers of a hand a write the consensus/choice pertaining each of these issues in a single line each (do we use alignments or not? Can we combo Impr. Critical and Keen? That sort of thing).

We're gamers. We tend to exaggerate the importance of details.

 

[Griego]

I am a professional forum lurker, both at enworld and rpg.net. I enjoyed reading the passionate discussions, but I didn't write much, specially because English is not my first language.

But I'm very tired. In these last months something changed, and the struggle between D&D4 and 3.5/Pathfinder fans has evolved to something nasty. It's not discussing anymore. It's critizising every single step the other "side" takes, it's wishing the failure of WotC or Paizo, it's the desire to destroy the "opponent".

And I don't understand it. I know fans can be very passionate, but I can read people who are completely blind when talking about the other side. Come on, D&D4 really improves many features, and Paizo and other companies employ some of the better writers in the game industry. We cannot afford loosing either WotC or the 3PP.

I know I'm not a "big name" in these forums, but please, stop it.

I couldn't agree more. Maybe we need a Rants forum where people can vent.

 

[Jack Colby]

I think it's childish to argue about such things, but it happens every time there's a new edition. The "edition wars" from the switch to 4e doesn't even seem as bad as the one to 3e (which is the first time the core game was changed in major, fundamental ways.) Just get used to it, as I suspect the wounds people feel over the change aren't ever, ever going to heal.

 

[SSquirrel]

You weren't a big fan of third party publishers previously, then? Because Goodman Games has done it for their convention modules, Green Ronin does it for Mutants & Masterminds, heck, even Human Head did it for Redhurst Academy of Magic.

Yes, the books do look nice, but they are by no means a first of their kind phenomenon.

Arcana Evolved looked pretty darn spiffy, but many people over on Monte's boards actually preferred the old black and white art. Arcana Unearthed definitely had an exceptional cover tho. Ptolus knocked everybody in the head as far as quality

 

[Broccli_Head]

Yes they can coexist

I am running several games on Golarion, including the Scales of War AP.

While my players in this group like the 4e rules, they so much prefer the setting of Paizo's Golarion. I just made a few tweaks to include Dragonborn and explain eladrin (tieflings already existed) and away we went...