Pathfinder 1E PPP (Post Pathfinder Poll)

[I'm A Banana]

The rules don't change enough, for my milage. I'm supportive of 3.75 attempts like this, and this might actually get me to play some of the Pathfinder adventure paths while FFZ and my PS4e game are being fiddled with. But while they see some of the problems with 3e, they don't see them all.

a) The Math is still a problem -- great disparity at higher levels between "good" and "bad" bonuses.

b) The 'Five Minute Adventuring Day' is still a problem -- spells are still a per-day resource, and characters that depend on them still can't do much when they're gone.

c) The CR system still doesn't allow for very easy group fights.

d) Attacks of Opportunity are still rampant and fiddly.

e) Races are still pointless after a level or five.

They do fix the 1st level vulnerability to a strong gust of wind, they do add better ways for the cleric to heal, and I like a lot of the class options and feats. The Grapple rules aren't too shabby.

It is a step in the right direction, but it's still not smooth enough, and the CMB bonus isn't as streamlining as they'd like to think it is.

A step in the right direction. Now they just need to grow some testicles and actually press for some deeper changes.

 

[Li Shenron]

"I am unsure about 4E but are NOT goin PF RPG"

Frankly, my hat for floating-point editions knows no limit. And while PF looks absolutely fine itself (I've read the free pdf), it goes further on the same trends of 3.5 which I didn't like.

Either I stay 3.0 forever, or I try a new FULL edition altogether (which might be 1e, 2e or 4e).

 

[Wormwood]

A step in the right direction. Now they just need to grow some testicles and actually press for some deeper changes.

But can they, really?

Compatibility with existing 3.5 rules is listed as one of their primary concerns.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm likely either going 4E or create my own house-ruled 3.75. The one thing that will likely sway me significantly is electronic tools. If 4E's tools allow me to do what I need, I'm more likely to go that way. If Paizo can create tools to support Pathfinder, they have a chance of getting my business. If they don't create any tools at all, and no one else does either, then I certainly won't be going Pathfinder.

 

[Wystan]

I will buy and devour 4th Edition, I do not need nor want another set of house rules for 3.5 edition. My group already plays with house rules.

I will look at the free offerings from Paizo and see if there is anything there that might interest me if my group refuses to go to 4th Edition, but otherwise I will play 3.5HR and hope to play/run 4th Edition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But can they, really?

Compatibility with existing 3.5 rules is listed as one of their primary concerns.

They can go farther.

"Compatibility" means, basically, the ability to drop in older stuff and have it work. As long as they don't invalidate the AC of monsters and the features of PrC's, it'll be compatible.

Something like FFZ is supposed to be "compatible" in this sense, even though it uses some pretty dramatically different rules in some places.

They can't go all the way to "4e but with different things!", but they can get closer to fixing some of the underlying problems with 3e.

 

[Verys Arkon]

I DM for and play in two groups, one is full of primarily casual gamers, the second is a mix of casual and "hard-core". I'm in the middle of the Savage Tide campaign in FR for the first group, and I'm just finishing the first adventure in the Runelords Pathfinder AP for the second, so I'm familiar with Paizo's products and I could be classed as a 'big fan'. I was a Dragon and Dungeon subscriber (and morn their death - the DDI doppelganger is a pathetic distant cousin at best), a Pathfinder subscriber, and I’ve bought some of Paizo’s Gamemastery accessories too (Critical Hit Deck is popular in our groups). Paizo has top-notch customer service, polished quality products, and their staff is accessible. Needless to say, I was disappointed with their decision to not support 4E with Pathfinder because I am really looking forward to 4E.

Back to my two groups though. There are enough casual gamers there that don’t really care about 4E (some are anti-4E), don’t think the current system needed a rewriting, don’t feel like investing in new books (though I think it is less about buying new books, and more about making the books already purchased largely obsolete), or are inclined to take the time to learn a new rules system. So as much as I’d love to switch to 4E, I might not have any players to DM for! And before anyone suggests a dictatorial “You’re the DM, you tell them what to play” approach, I’ll reply that you can’t bully a group of smart, busy, professional 30-somethings like you can the tweens (no insult intended to any tweens out there!).

Now with Paizo’s PF RPG, the already significant challenge of convincing my groups to switch to 4E gets even harder. I’ll agree that PF RPG seems to be a set of house-ruled 3.5e, which isn’t in itself a bad thing. It would make a better starting point to work from then the WotC 3.5 rules at the very least. Add to that we’ve enjoyed their APs, and they have proven design and production capabilities (IMO). Overcoming the ‘inertia’ required to switch to 4e has just gotten more difficult.

I can only hope that I get the best of both worlds if one group switches to 4E and the other elects to go PF RPG. I doubt either way we will stick with 3.5.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Especially not in the 4E forum. Most posting and "polling" here are definitely pro 4E by now. The General Discussion forum seems to have this a little reserved, judging from the last poll regarding 3.5 / 4E split.

That was my thought, initially- "Why is this poll only in the 4E forum? It's naturally going to be somewhat skewed."

Then again, even cross-posting it to the General Forum will likely result in skewed results (double votes on both polls, for instance).

I think the only way to get a decent (reasonably reliable) sample would be to run a poll like this in a different forum altogether (can't think of one offhand), that doesn't notably seem to cater to one crowd more than another.

Or, if you really want to get a good notion, to run random polling of posters subscribed to ENWorld, and then compile the results.

[EDIT- Or, is there a "show voter names" option? I can't recall. If so, then you could crosspost it, and compile the results on your own, removing double votes. That would give a better idea. Still not perfect, but doable.]

 

[Seule]

This announcement has saddened me, and has made me change my mind.
Unfortunately, I won't be playing Pathfinder, if they aren't willing to support the system I'm likely to be playing. I like their current products, but I have to wave goodbye.
On the other hand, if I do decide that 4e sucks (which seems unlikely but possible) I'll be sticking with 3.5. Further splintering that market doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

--Penn

 

[I'm A Banana]

Unfortunately, I won't be playing Pathfinder, if they aren't willing to support the system I'm likely to be playing.

You sure it's a question of "willing" and not a question of "able?"

How long has Wizards been dragging the GSL around?

Are you sure it's not Wizards being unwilling to support Pathfinder by giving Paizo the 4e rules it would need to make Pathfidner 4e?

I wouldn't be so quick to say that it's Paizo simply deciding not to support 4e.