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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5059224" data-attributes="member: 22424">After looking into 4e and playing a little, I concluded that it wasn't for me. After reading Pathfinder, I have almost concluded that it is also not for me. (I do need to play a few test sessions, to see if it plays differently from how it reads, but I don't expect any great surprises.)For me, there are three issues with Pathfinder:1) I always found that PC powers got too hard to manage, especially at high levels. It hardly seems to me that the best way to fix this is to engage in yet another round of power creep.2) The game adds another set of fiddly little rules and powers on top of an already complex rule set. Barbarian rage abilities, sorcerer bloodlines, and similar may all be fine ideas individually, but they are just yet another thing to have to keep track of.3) Frankly, my tastes in gaming have shifted very strongly towards much more rules-lite systems. Now, 3.5e is most certainly not a rules-light system (in fact, it's right at the top end of complexity for any game I would consider running, even in just the core rules), but I've played it since it was released, and those years of experience make it feel rules-lite. Pathfinder has changed just enough to nullify those years of experience, while leaving the system essentially as complex as it ever was.Pathfinder is a very fine game. On balance, it's an improvement over 3.5e. And, if I were making a recommendation to a new group as to which "D&D" they should go for, it would be the one I would recommend. But for me, and for my group, it's just not "better enough" from 3.5e to compel us to switch.</blockquote>

Verification