D&D 4E PROPS TO PAIZO – On How Pathfinder feels (more like) D&D (to me) than 4E

[Mercurius]

PROPS TO PAIZO – On How Pathfinder feels (more like) D&D (to me) than 4E

First, a bit of background. I haven’t played 3.x since 2003 or 2004 (long ago enough that I can’t pinpoint which year). After a hiatus from the hobby, I got excited about news of 4E and started a campaign in late 2008 and have been playing ever since, DMing until about six months ago. I’m primed to take over the DM reins again in a few months and am starting the process of designing a new campaign setting, one of my favorite activities. That said, I’m a bit burned out on 4E. I like the game and feel that some aspects of it are better than prior editions, but I’m also a bit sick of other aspects. After ordering the Pathfinder Beginner’s Box a couple weeks ago, I’ve toyed with the idea of running Pathfinder – something that I thought I would never do. Over the last week or so I’ve become more serious about the idea, even purchasing the first parts of three different Adventure Paths.

I am really excited about 5E and not only plan on playing it when it comes out, but checking out the playtest. If the material they provide is comprehensive enough I might even run my campaign with 5E, and maybe enhance it with materials from Pathfinder, 4E, and other editions. But I’m inspired about the idea of running one of Paizo’s Adventure Paths, so I’m getting to know the Pathfinder game and hope to dive into the solo adventure in the Beginner’s Box at some point in the next few days.

So here it is, a repeat of my thread sub-title: Pathfinder feels (more like) D&D (to me) than 4E.

I feel a bit funny saying that, but it is a deliberate move on my part. I have engaged in a few conversations here over the last year or so about what is D&D, and have taken issue with the phrase “4E is not D&D to me” or assertions by naysayers that 4E isn’t actually D&D. I have agreed with many of the common criticisms which I won’t go into—that’s not the point of this thread—but I have still felt that 4E was very much a valid expression of the “Being of D&D,” even if it is less traditional than any other edition.

But here’s the kicker. After reading through the Pathfinder books, I’m having numerous experiences of “Oh, I forgot about that – I missed that! Spell lists! Interesting magic items! This is what D&D is supposed to be like, even with the warts.” Etc etc.

Given that I haven’t played 3.x in eight years, I honestly can’t tell how Pathfinder will play, or whether I’ll like it more or less than 4E or if my inner egalitarian will just assign it the label “different.” But the feel of the game, of the rulebooks and Adventure Paths, is closer to what I hold in my mind as being D&D and, more importantly, what I love about D&D. For that I have to give Paizo props.

I probably shouldn’t go further without reminding myself of what I didn’t like about 3.x, and from what I can tell hasn’t changed with Pathfinder – the complication of the game and the time-sink of preparation for the DM. As I said above, my intention is still to convert to 5E as soon as possible, but that rather than playing 4E until then, I might be going on a Pathfinder detour and am rather excited about the idea.

So this thread is my way of saying: I get it. I get why Pathfinder feels more like D&D (to me, and some others) than 4E does, and I get what 4E has lost and how much of it has been kept alive in Pathfinder. I still think that 4E is D&D, that it feels like D&D, but more of a variant on the core lineage, a cousin in the family rather than a son or daughter. It also feels like more of a detour, a temporary zone to explore, rather than a permanent destination (for me). The pseudo-Buddhist in me recognizes that everything is impermanent, that no matter how great 5E will be it will still be a temporal manifestation of the "Being of D&D" that will transform (die and be reborn) into a new incarnation, but looking into Pathfinder has a feeling of coming back to the core lineage of D&D and re-engaging my roots, like I've been away in a foreign country, a country that I've enjoyed visiting but isn't home, isn't where I want to be.

Again, this is not to say anything negative about 4E or those that consider it home. I am just realizing that it isn't home to me, that it isn't my lineage. With this new encounter with Pathfinder and the development of 5E, it feels like both a new renaissance of D&D is just dawning, and a homecoming. And it is good to be home!

 

[Aldarc]

Is this really that surprising when it's a 3.X clone?

 

[S'mon]

I run 4e D&D "as D&D", but it sometimes fights me, notably on the damage/healing mechanics and difficulty of running an exploration-based game. Funnily enough I prefer some of the '4e tropes' - badass starting PCs, magic common but not all-powerful, and not Vancian - to the 'D&D tropes' which 3e/PF retained. Overall I like both games, though I find PF's core setting too adolescent-horror-grimdark in places for my tastes (looks beautiful though). As games, I prefer 4e to PF (except the BB is great, very Mentzer-meets-4e), but certainly PF is closer to archetypal D&D than 4e is.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I never had change to play 4th edition. I don't like the system for it's feel, so I never consider running it. Mostly because lack of magical feel which is more than rules, coming from how utterly boringly those books were written.

I could play however. Though, that said it's not game of D&D. Heck Palladium is more game of D&D than 4th edition. Mechanics have departed too far, too many things got deleted. I do like book of nine swords mechanics, and it doesn't feel like D&D either, really, but that is something I'd like D&D to be.

I don't like 4th edition on-line thing at all. I own like 20 books of it, all pretty much useless now. Essentials feel more whole game what I've been hearing about it. I dont' care how cool 5th edition will be, if it's online monthly pay plus books good bye.

My favourite system would have lot of monsters/items/spell-like thingies, but it would be much more simple system than current ones. Pathfinder still has too much skills, skill groups would work better. Feats are too micro. They should do more. There is too much base classes in pathfinder. They don't do prestige classes, which would be far more useful than numerous base classes. Rules of tweaking base classes without some pre-done kit/set would be great.

Magic would be better with some space "examples" and research rules. "How to craft your own spell rule that is". And no Vancian magic as it is now.

I play lot of high level games and character sheets, especially even pathfinder become way too long with abilities that don't matter anymore because well they were pre-reqs etc. They take room, and make harder to spot relevant ones.

I think 4th edition changed too many things, but not all the right ones.
And Pathfinder changed too little things, and some things they tweaked well, and some are more like annoying "why".

For Golarion, it's well written, interesting setting, but way too fantasy-europe/east to my tastes. What else, too direct borrowings from other things, like lovecraft. Monsters with names like "hounds of tindalos" makes me think some quite other universe. Setting should localize more than it does, these borrowing elements. It does some, but some slip though unedited.

I agree on adolescent-horror-grimdark. And some mythology bothered me very much. LIke, let's take my favourite example. Asmodeus is quite misogynistic god. It says so in books, many times his attitude toward "weaker sex". Then let's see, there is Cheliax with Queen/Priestess of Asmodeous as ruler. That doesn't support the idea about god that well. In universe where those thing are real, they should reflect into politics and laws. You don't do that on mythology and continue it being politically correct. Sheesh.

This is not only place where something is like something and then political correctness strikes. It also is "ooh, look we said something kinky-evil in our back-story" but no worries kiddies there is nothing sex related in actual gaming, Or if where is it's nasty undead-abomination-thingies that are so grim-dark you dismiss it.
In other words Golarion adult themes are for most part really half-assed.
And some of nastiness/horror can still be too much for people (I know few):

But naturally Pathfinder system can be used for any rpg world. I kinda dig Golarion, kinda not myself. Pathfinder also have material made by third parties. So if you don't like Golarion there is material out there for those who don't have homebrew universe.

 

[S'mon]

In other words Golarion adult themes are for most part really half-assed.

That's my feeling, but I think Paizo know their target market pretty well.

I'm planning to use the Pathfinder Beginner Box with Gary Gygax's Yggsburgh, pretty much the opposite of Golarion - no 'Grimdark', but patriarchy & sexism is just part of the societal background fabric and presented as normal. Took me a while to notice every female NPC above 0th level was a pirate, outlaw, brigand, or escaped noble's 'leman' (mistress/concubine) on the run!

 

[S'mon]

I agree on adolescent-horror-grimdark. And some mythology bothered me very much. LIke, let's take my favourite example. Asmodeus is quite misogynistic god. It says so in books, many times his attitude toward "weaker sex". Then let's see, there is Cheliax with Queen/Priestess of Asmodeous as ruler. n there is material out there for those who don't have homebrew universe.

I expect she has a fetishistic BDSM relationship with Asmodeus... But only 'off-stage'.

 

[Tallifer]

I first played D&D in the 1980s. Left it as time passed. Played soem other games. Life moved on and gaming sort of disappeared from my life and surroundings.

Then I randomly Googled an old friend and found out that he was writing a popular Old School blog. Old School Renaissance, what's this? I thought there was just AD&D? So I looked up more and found out that I had missed out on 2nd edition, 3rd edition and lo and behold there is a 4th edition.

Checked out this new edition. Wow! This is exciting stuff. D&D looks good. Easy to understand the new rules: no need to learn a bazillion new things for each class and race: everything fits and follows. Learned the system in a weekend.

Then I discover that lots of old players hate it. Weird. "Not D&D." Now that's just telling lies your mama taught you not to: because I have played a lot of systems and 1st and 4th edition D&D are certainly a lot more related to each other than to any of those other games. Hit points, classes, mediaeval fantasy, fireballs, +1 swords, et cetera.

But after a couple of years of reading complaints and trolls, I was starting to get a little convinced.

Until I started playing Pathfinder. Yes, Pathfinder is good too. Yes, it is D&D too. And guess what, it feels very similar to 4th edition. In fact it was quite easy to learn, even though I had never played 3rd, because the same rules were present in 4th, just under different names or with some variation.

Tactical combat on a grid with miniatures. Precise distances and areas of effects. Several conditions to keep track of on different timers. Easy healing, resilient characters, attacks of opportunity and immediate reactions. Point bought abilities. Similar monsters: artillery, brutes, soldiers, controllers. The party has a defender/striker, a leader, a leader/defender and a controller. As I play more in this enjoyable Pathfinder campaign, I am sure I will find even more similarities.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Hehe. I rewrote story that his hatred for females was because of Sarashnae (sp?) who got involted with his brother and with her forginess and approval caused him to create again more things that caused chaos and ended into situation where he killed his brother which wasn't such a happy family event. So female kindness and empathy traits are those that he hates most. Very "masculine" and lawful and dispassionate woman he kinda gives silent approval of being normally annoying as all free willing mortals.

Sadly fetistic relatioships are very unlikely considering hell book source material. There are 3 high ranking devil girls there, and oh mine, they certainly sound like very annoying bitches. If that's his idea of "strong" women, no wonder he hates them. I mean, who woudn't. (ok maybe someone with fetish for such things). ;P

Ah but all around, Golarion material is useful but I think Yggsburgh sounds with more real.
Actually Golarion would sound more real if there would be reasons like you jokingly suggested. But wait... you can't do that in teen game. Unless it's assasin's creed 2 or... well anything not table top rpg.

 

[pemerton]

Is this really that surprising when it's a 3.X clone?

Agreed. It's not as if Paizo exactly concealed the point of their game:

 

[Mercurius]

Is this really that surprising when it's a 3.X clone?

I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you saying that it is not a surprise that Pathfinder feels more like classic/traditional D&D than 4E because it is a 3.x clone? I'm fully cognizant of that; part of what I was saying was just that, and that I didn't realize that I missed these elements until I looked more deeply into Pathfinder again and, concurrently, didn't realize how far 4E had moved away from those traditional elements.

So again, I am not making a value judgement of better or worse--at least not beyond personal preference--but to say that it seems to me more clearly now that Pathfinder and 4E present two different streams in the D&D lineage, and that Pathfinder is closer to the core lineage, with 4E being more of a "cousin" within the larger family. What has struck me is that I realized, upon re-investigating Pathfinder, that I'm more of a traditionalist than I thought, at least in many of the ways that Pathfinder and 4E differ.

If I was to pinpoint any one element as key to this it is that 4E feels like a further level of removal of the player from the character than other forms of D&D, that the operation of the character is more like a chess-pieced (or a video game avatar) than other forms of D&D. This is exemplified by powers, which are akin to "game moves."

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I hear you about "adolescent-horror-grimdark" but this is hardly unique to Paizo and 4E's vibe isn't really any different. I've never run a pre-published setting and never plan on it--I enjoy world building too much, perhaps even more than gaming itself--but I do love setting material and purchase a ton of it. That said, I like Golarion but no more or less than, say, the Forgotten Realms or Eberron or Greyhawk.

And just to be clear: I don't find Pathfinder to be my "perfect edition of choice" - there is no such thing, of course, but from the sounds of it 5E will be as close as I've seen. But again, it is closer to the core tradition that I love, which is why I'm giving props.