Pathfinder 1E I have been asked to try this again

[GMforPowergamers]

Cadence, the added aspect as I see it is that Player 1 likes a lot of the later additions to 3.5 that moved in a direction different from Pathfinder. In particular, he favours many of the late 3.5 Ed classes over the early classes, or the ones added in Pathfinder.

wow I want to copy and past that somewhere so when people ask what I don't like about pathfinder I can say N'raac said it better then I could. I have in the past said "It is just backwards compatable enough to look like it is the same game, and just different enough to make me not be able to play the way I got used to."

He seems OK with many mechanical changes as he suggested adopting some in his proposed 3.5 game. At least that's my read on it.

yea, I really like there skills system, I like it better then 3e (witch it is based on) and more then 4e.

Oh, and they both prefer 4e for reasons not specified in the discussion (maybe the OP can elaborate), but which are not addressed by the GM's house rules proposed.

at the end of 3.5 we had a lot of work arounds to get close to what we like, but when 4e came out it was much closer to what we were looking for then even our house rules.

I like being able to quickly use short hand for what your character is in play, Defender Leader Striker controller was very good to add to the game (although not always excuited well).

I like that a 14th level fighter in 4e is as important as a 14th level wizard or 14th level cleric. I like that the fighter also has just as many options of cool things to pull out as the other two. I loved that we could play with no cleric as long as we had a healer (any leader). I love the warlord class (the class I have played the most in 4e and will be the first thing I homebrew into 5e if the fighter can't do those things).

 

[athos]

I think you're overthinking this. Give your friend's game one session, and if you're not having more fun that you would be having with another hobby, tell him "Gave it a shot, still hate PF, I'm sitting this one out."

I would give it more than one session. When 4e replaced Living Greyhawk we tried it, for months... we got characters up to 4th or 5th level, so we played for a while. I feel we gave it an honest shot, and it just wasn't our cup of tea. Pathfinder might be the same with you, although with all the monkeying around with the rules your GM is doing, I think it is hardly fair to call it Pathfinder, but hey. Give it a while, see if it grows on you, if not then try and figure out what it is you do not like about it. By the time my daughter and I quit 4e, she could verbalize exactly what she didn't like about it and it made sense to me, even though some of my own reasons were slightly different.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The setting: A rotating game where everyone has agreed not to alienate everyone by coming off too heavy handed.

yea more or less right...

The DM: One of a group of rotating DMs has an idea he wants to run using PF. He knows two of the players aren't huge fans of PF but like 4e and one really likes 3.5. He apparently doesn't understand why they like 4e (even though its the most popular game at the table) and so he suggests a few things he thinks might 4e-ify PF a bit.

yup

Player 1: Player 1 thinks PF is just a small tweak of 3.5. In the past when he had money he purchased slightly upgraded editions (3.5 from 3 for example), but since he doesn't have it now, and since he has all the 3.5 stuff he doesn't like Pathfinder even though the rules are on-line for free. He'd rather they ran 3.5 even though he doesn't trust most of the DMs at the table to run anything even like PF (which is only slightly different from 3.5). (EDIT: Add [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] 's remarks from the next post .)

well I didn't say I didn't trust, I said this DM (who has a hit or miss record with games in general) isn't someone who's earned a "I trust you no matter what" but is more along the lines of "well we want to give you another shot what have you got."

Player 2: Thinks that just publishing stuff from the OGL is just house rules unless you made the original game and even though Paizo gives the rules away for free they're money grubbing and evil, so he loathes everything about Pathfinder.

yea, he has a mild dislike for the idea of retroclones in general, but normaly just grumbles, because there are people that say "Pathfinder is the real D&D" it has turned him way off to them and can't separate the company from the rabid fans (In his defense the brother he lives with is a rabid Pathfinder fan who bad mouths WotC all the time and it has turned him off to piazo in genral)

I think you're overthinking this. Give your friend's game one session, and if you're not having more fun that you would be having with another hobby, tell him "Gave it a shot, still hate PF, I'm sitting this one out."

If I sit out he can't run. It's held at a place that we only have access too if we all play

 

[Neonchameleon]

that is the problem, it doesn't address me...

1) I don't want to buy new books, I have 3.5
2) I don't like that they upped casters with more features
3) I think the spells need to be revamped
4) fighters are still boreing

1: Here you go
2: Minor issue although I agree with you.
3: They did revamp quite a few including Polymorph. Not enough but it was a start.
4: Don't play one then. I will never play a 4e Slayer except under protest but I'm glad that there is a really boring version of the fighter.

 

[Jester David]

If your GM let's you use 3rd party stuff there's an excellent company known as Dreamscarred Press, known for updating psionics to Pathfinder, that is doing a series of classes based on those from the Book of Nine Swords:
http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/Store/cid=18.html

They have three so far and you can snag PDFs for only $8, but I wouldn't be surprised if the classes were on d20pfsrd.com for free.

 

[Jester David]

3: They did revamp quite a few including Polymorph. Not enough but it was a start.

This is the irony of Pathfinder.

When it was released, they were convinced it would just be used for their APs and the minority of hold outs from 4e. They didn't think that 4e wouldn't do well and their numbers would surge AND they'd attract brand new players.
So the game was backwards compatible, as backwards compatible as possible. Which, at the start, was a selling point.

Now... Pathfinder seems a bit clunky as there's all these problem areas still in the game. And they knew these were problems. They could have done so much more, but wanted to allow as many 3e options as possible.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

if that were true then there would be no reason not to run 4e ( the version everyone at the table currently likes best)

No reason except that the guy running the game has chosen to run Pathfinder instead.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I would give it more than one session. When 4e replaced Living Greyhawk we tried it, for months... we got characters up to 4th or 5th level, so we played for a while. I feel we gave it an honest shot, and it just wasn't our cup of tea. Pathfinder might be the same with you, although with all the monkeying around with the rules your GM is doing, I think it is hardly fair to call it Pathfinder, but hey. Give it a while, see if it grows on you, if not then try and figure out what it is you do not like about it. By the time my daughter and I quit 4e, she could verbalize exactly what she didn't like about it and it made sense to me, even though some of my own reasons were slightly different.

Kudos to you, but from GMforpowergamer's various ENworld posts, we know that this isn't his first time playing PF. This is like the umpteenth time your mother told you to try [insert your least favorite veggie] when you were growing up, because hey, this time she steamed it instead of boiling it!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If I sit out he can't run. It's held at a place that we only have access too if we all play

Sorry if you covered this earlier, but what normally happens when one or more players don't like the game the GM wants to run?

(And how exactly did your Captain Planet situation come about?)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If your GM let's you use 3rd party stuff there's an excellent company known as Dreamscarred Press, known for updating psionics to Pathfinder, that is doing a series of classes based on those from the Book of Nine Swords:
http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/Store/cid=18.html

They have three so far and you can snag PDFs for only $8, but I wouldn't be surprised if the classes were on d20pfsrd.com for free.

so there are 3 "books" warder, stalker and warlord... so I can pay$8 each to get someone else's interpretation of the Bo9S, or I can just play 3.5 pay $0 more then I already have, and have all the classes I want.

Some how this is less of a money grad then the time WotC redid all the rules of the game making it far more balanced and fair... wow you know I am getting to the point where I wonder if people understand the idea of not wanting to pay for a revision.

You know what I totally would buy... alchemist and Magus and Gunslinger for 3.5... you know new things that add to my games, but I am not in the mood for there powergaming wizards and clerics that need 'more then spells' when spells are the most powerful thing in the game.