Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder


log in or register to remove this ad

I agree, this is not the place to talk about how 3.5 shot your dog and stole your woman, If ya really disliked 3.5 pathfinder is not for you.

+1

I could see and appreciate his input if he were playing / running both 4E and Pathfinder / 3.5 (and there are people who are). But this is just turning into the same old, same old 3.5 was broken discussion.

I've been running Pathfinder off and on since it's release. I've still houseruled a few things (things that I houseruled in 3.5 also). Things like Action Points and what they can be used for, starting HP, the removal of confirming crits, the use of the crit hit / crit fumble deck.

But other than that I'm liking the system alot.
 

Now wait a second, where is this opinion when pretty much *every thread about 4e* ends up going the same way? His points are germane to the topic at hand, since his point is that Pathfinder did nothing to address this problem in 3.5. Telling him to GTFO of your thread because you don't like what he's saying? Nice.

Jay
 

Now wait a second, where is this opinion when pretty much *every thread about 4e* ends up going the same way? His points are germane to the topic at hand, since his point is that Pathfinder did nothing to address this problem in 3.5. Telling him to GTFO of your thread because you don't like what he's saying? Nice.

To be fair to Pathfinder, they did try to reduce this problem by doing what we all suspected would have to be done -- making multi-classers miss out on cool high level abilities. Looking at the PF core rulebook, it's less susceptible to this than 3.5 was. In particular, note how prestige class saves were changed. Or how high level sorcerers get bonus spells (which seem to be lost if they prestige class).

So the PF rules do improve on the situation, somewhat. But with enough classes the underlying issue would come back.
 

To be fair to Pathfinder, they did try to reduce this problem by doing what we all suspected would have to be done -- making multi-classers miss out on cool high level abilities. Looking at the PF core rulebook, it's less susceptible to this than 3.5 was. In particular, note how prestige class saves were changed. Or how high level sorcerers get bonus spells (which seem to be lost if they prestige class).

So the PF rules do improve on the situation, somewhat. But with enough classes the underlying issue would come back.

What I'll be interested to see as the Pathfinder rulebase matures and the playerbase gets more accustomed to the ins and outs, is whether the addition of high-level capstone abilities for base classes has killed the prestige class (or relegated it all the way back to somewhere alongside 'counterspelling' on the hierarchy of rarely-used game options).

Power-wise, the great majority of 3.5e prestige classes are left completely in the shade by PFs base classes (which were, after all, nominally equivalent in power to 3.5e base classes), and from what (admittedly few) PF prestige classes I've seen, the same generally goes for them.

While I don't think there's any doubt that PrCs were overused in 3.5e, both as a powergaming mechanism and as a page-filler in sourcebooks, I think there's still a big place for them as a mechanism for PCs to gain interesting and unique abilities that don't sync well with the standard feat/spellcasting progression. PrCs were a a really cool 3.x innovation, in my book, and it'd be a shame to see them go away.
 

Now wait a second, where is this opinion when pretty much *every thread about 4e* ends up going the same way?
Jay

Because if this were a 4E thread where someone started crapping all over 4E, there would have been the typical 4E defenders piling on any dissenters and the mods would have already stepped in and either banned people or closed the thread.
 

Now wait a second, where is this opinion when pretty much *every thread about 4e* ends up going the same way? His points are germane to the topic at hand, since his point is that Pathfinder did nothing to address this problem in 3.5. Telling him to GTFO of your thread because you don't like what he's saying? Nice.

Jay

Frankly, he's said his piece and the debate that was starting to unfold is a bit of a tangent on the thread. It's been hashed out before in other ones, no need to repeat here.
 

Caveat: I never played PF, only read the rules.

If somehow 4e disappeared or I wasn't able to play 4e ever again, and I had to chose between 3.x and Pathfinder, there would be little doubt. Pathfinder seems to fix a lot of the issues with 3.x, especially if you consider class imbalance a feature rather than a bug.

The biggest plusses (for me) is the consolidated skills list, the fixing of save or die spells, the CM system and the power-up classes have received, making PrC's a choice instead of a must.

So in short, I would be much more willing or likely to play PF over 3.x, if ever offered.
 

With respect to the Spell Compendium, there were a number of spells within it that caused my Age of Worms Campaign to die at 14th level.

In fact, I think it's fair to say that a vast number number of D&D campaigns died at that power level in 3.5 -- and most for the same reason.

While I picked up 4E core and a few in my gaming group did as well, the guys in my gaming circle are all grognards who are resistant when they believe their goodwill has been abused or taken for granted. The loss of Dragon and Dungeon was something that just pissed us off, to be blunt. WotC knew there would be customers who would be alienated by it. There were - there are - and my group of eight in my gaming circle were those types of customers. Coming on to two years later, that emotional ill-will is still rather raw for us.

When it came down to it, the guys in my group don't want anything to do with 4E. It's not about play balance, broken spells or power level. Oh you can make an argument about it, but that's not really it (for us). I believe the essence of it is far more emotional and visceral than those arguments could ever capture; the play balance issues become excuses as much as they are actual reasons.

It came down to the fact that most members of my gaming cirlcle have been playing 25-30 years. They liked 3.5 and we all had thousands of dollars worth of books invested in it. The revise/reset/re-sell of 4E was simply too soon for my group, and it was handled in a way that antagonized the hell out of us. There are intellectual arguments to be made pro and con, but to cut through it all with a +7 Light Sabre of Truth, it comes down to a visceral reaction on our part.

Paizo, on the other hand, created some of the best products of the 3.5 era. Their claim as "spiritual heirs" of the Gygaxian mantle is, at a certain level, every bit as strong as WotC's. We like their products and we want to like their game. The intellectual arguments are there if you want to find them - and I'm not saying the logic and reasoning should not have a prominent place in the working out of that decision to buy/play Pathfinder.

But for all that, the emotional calculus which has lead our group to now move to Pathfinder is as much about goodwill towards the product line and a move towards a new(ish) system at a time when we felt like it, not when some bean counters at WotC thought it was time to sell us some new books we did not need.

This is my first post in the General section on ENWorld in almost twenty months -- since the mid-summer of 2008. When I say my group was put-off by the death of Dragon and Dungeon and the birth of 4E ahead of its appointed schedule - I'm not exaggerating. In that admittedly embittered context, choosing to move towards Pathfinder has been an easy sell.

Happily, the products themselves are top notch and the Pathfinder Chronicles and accesories line are the best in the industry.
 
Last edited:

What I'll be interested to see as the Pathfinder rulebase matures and the playerbase gets more accustomed to the ins and outs, is whether the addition of high-level capstone abilities for base classes has killed the prestige class (or relegated it all the way back to somewhere alongside 'counterspelling' on the hierarchy of rarely-used game options).
I think that watching any RPG ruleset grow and mature over time is rather interesting. I've seen quite a few and I can't think of any that, with a steady release of support products, don't suffer from bloat over time.

Corner-cases are discovered (and exploited) and system mastery creates a larger gap between the hardcore and casual player.

Pathfinder won't be immune to this, nor was 3.x, nor was 2e and now 4e (2yrs later) is getting thick with so many options. AD&D didn't have such a spew of player options and was mostly supported with adventures, and was one of the things I like about that edition.

It will be curious what becomes the hot buttons though. Will it be prestige classing? Will it be high-powered options that make 15th level dudes feel more powerful than 15th level dudes in 3.x?

I look forward to see how Paizo handles this (via errata, reprints, edition revision, etc). For some reason, I can't see Mona and crew being sheepish about admitting "OK, after 2 yrs and a million games, X wasn't such a good mechanic. We're taking it into the shop for an update. We're not sure how it's gonna work yet, but we admit it's messy. Check back later."

I would appreciate that kind of honest self assessment in a company that writes game rules. I wish WOTC could be that way.
 

Remove ads

Top