How to consolidate a 4e and a Pathfinder game?

[ghaladen]

So here's the issue. Come January, I'll be going back to school part-time. Couple that with working full-time, plus girlfriend and video games, and that spells less time for the tabletop gaming. Currently I'm running a 4th Edition game every other Friday, and a Pathfinder game every Saturday. Both take place in my homebrew world, just at different time periods. Right now the character lineup looks as follows

Friday 4e
Human Bard
Eladrin Swordmage
Eladrin Bladesinger (kind of a fighter/wizard combo, from Neverwinter book)
Human Warpriest
Human Monk

Pathfinder
Human Cloistered Cleric
Human Gunslinger
Elven Spellslinger (a wizard with a gun)

As you can tell from the two groups, I don't share the sentiment that 4e is better or Pathfinder is better. IMO both games are fantastic and fun. Also the monk may be dropping out soon due to this real life thing, so that may lower us down to 7.

Also, both groups are incredibly roleplay heavy, so the whole argument that 4e is all about combat and the two won't mix is null and void as well.

Now the question is, what system do I use to provide a happy compromise?
Minis or no minis is not a big deal. Given the fact that there's potentially 7 people means I'll probably put them away to increase the speed of combat.

D&D Next keeps saying modularity, but I see no plans on powers in 5e, plus it doesn't have all the classes I need yet, so that's a no go as well.

People have mentioned 13th Age to me, but once again it's not out yet and doesn't have as much in the way of classes to suit all tastes.

So the obvious seems to be mix the two, but that in itself seems like a mess. I'd have to either tone down the power output of the 4e classes, or have the Pathfinder characters at higher levels. Plus there's XP, some classes have healing surges, shifting vs 5 foot stepping, etc. Does death occur at negative Con or negative Bloodied? Does a PF's channel positive not affect 4e characters to balance not having surges?

Or do I just simply throw them both in battle and whatever type character you use determines which rules you follow. Seems rather chaotic, but I've done worse.

Anyway, ideas are greatly appreciated.

 

[Stormonu]

Go with Savage Worlds + Fantasy Supplement.

Though I'm a Pathfinder guy myself, I'm torn on which way you should go. Have you consulted with your players to see if they have a strong opinion for or against either system? Their opinions probably will help in swaying whichever direction you go, as it sounds like you could easily go either way.

I will say, that 4E is likely to be easier prepping, and I'd think that would tip it toward favoring 4E.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=92198]ghaladen[/MENTION] I did a comparison of a PF ranger and a 4e ranger at 10th level, and IIRC their attack, defenses, skills, and hit point were very close. I don't think the maths are that far off, so it's stuff like healing surges that might be problematic. As [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION] says 4e is easier to prep home brew stuff...OTOH your two gunslinger-type PF characters don't have any equivalents in 4e. So I say make an unholy love child of the two and just go for it!

Further thoughts...

I'd only use XP as an aid when building encounters (if that), and just level the PCs when it suits your story or at every X number of sessions.

Give the PF characters healing surges, so they can benefit from the warpriest and bard's powers. Alternately, you could get rid of healing surges altogether and ignore any references to them in 4e - that might feel a bit harsh to the 4e players though.

Use the 4e rules for shifting (it takes a move action). Really they're very very similar to 5 ft stepping, just more spelled out.

Choose a death point that suits your play style best. Personally I'd go with negative bloodied.

With the cloistered cleric's Challen Positive Energy, I'd make it require the recipient spend a healing surge to benefit from it. Otherwise keep it the same.

 

[Stormonu]

As @Stormonu says 4e is easier to prep home brew stuff...OTOH your two gunslinger-type PF characters don't have any equivalents in 4e. So I say make an unholy love child of the two and just go for it!

Dunno about that...I think you could be off to a pretty decent start by using a refluffed (archery) Ranger for a gunslinger.

 

[S'mon]

I've found that converting existing PCs to new systems never works. I've seen other GMs try it and their campaigns then always wind down/tail off, likewise. If it were me I'd have to wind up one of the campaigns and invite the players to join the other campaign, with their new PCs the descendants or ancestors of their old PCs. I'd make sure the new PCs were as powerful as the continuing PCs, and probably had links to the shelved PCs.

I don't like 3e over about 10th level, so if it were me I'd probably be looking to wrap up the Pathfinder game, but YMMV. You might want to end the game with the smaller PC group, or you might want to end the game with the players most amenable to change, or the one you enjoy less, or the one with the players you're not so fond of, given the risk they'll stop playing with you.

 

[delericho]

I think I must be missing something. If the two campaigns take place in different time periods, why the need to reconcile the two? Either continue to run two campaigns but alternate between them, or wrap one (or both) up and have the players roll up new characters to bring them into the other (or a new) campaign.

As for which system to use... you have three options: either you choose one (whichever you've been enjoying more), or you have your players take a vote (which, to be honest, is likely to split 50/50), or convert everyone on to a new system entirely.

 

[vagabundo]

You should probably run both; using the two time periods to delineate the ruleset.

Alternate between the two campaigns periodically, and try to intertwine the campaigns arcs somehow. It would be challenging, but awesome if you can pull it off.

 

[innerdude]

CHECK OUT FANTASY CRAFT.

It's d20-based, so the basic concepts will be familiar to both groups. However, its core conceits about what makes up a character concept is much more fluid than either 4e or 3e.

Its GM prep time is much closer to the 4e side of the spectrum than the 3e side, though overall still more than 4e's.

Seriously, check it out. It's EXACTLY the kind of compromise between the two systems that I think your group would like, and it's a wicked-awesome system.

If your group is okay going a little farther afield from the d20 core, then as Stormonu suggests, Savage Worlds is superb, and since it's classless, all players can create whatever character concept they want.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I'd either convert the characters over to PF or have them all roll new characters and vote to determine which rule-set to use. I just think converting back to the 3.5/PF rules would be easier than trying to convert the 3.5/PF over to the 4E stuff especially with those gunslingers.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

If you have the players convert from PF to 4E or visa versa, you should emphasize that they shouldn't get hung up on exact, direct conversions between the systems and focus on creating a character with the feel of the original.

Most of the trouble I've seen with converting characters arises when the player is militant about retaining mechanical minutiae of their character (a single specific feat, spell, magic item, etc.) or retaining the same class. If your players focus on the character's essence (personality, backstory, and schtick in combat and out-of-combat) and have leeway in the mechanical build, it's easy to convert characters between systems.