Icyshadowlord
First Post
My bad then. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I had faced the kind of people I talked about a few days ago and I was starting to get tired with it, hence the edgy reaction.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E Reconsidering Pathfinder over 4E
- Thread starter Charwoman Gene
- Start date
qstor
Adventurer
I recommend Pathfinder for the reasons stated by the posters. I am of the mind that 4e isn't what D&D is supposed to be. I play it once in a while for the hell of it but I don't DM it.
What I like is the new barbarian and sorcerer classes. There is as other people have said and the sorcerer and barbarian have a lot of flavor now. And the APG rounds out each core class with new abilities that lets you swap out for old ones. So players can have a lot of options without the 3.x splatbook.
I haven't run the Adventure Paths but I love the artwork and writing in them. They give the DM a setting and months worth of encounters for their group.
One thing not mentioned is the setting Glorion. Pathfinder is generic enough you can use the rules and old 3.5 monsters in Greyhawk or whatever world you want. But the Inner sea campaign guide has just been released and the 4 part poster map is great as a side purchase.
*throws water on Dave*
Mike
What I like is the new barbarian and sorcerer classes. There is as other people have said and the sorcerer and barbarian have a lot of flavor now. And the APG rounds out each core class with new abilities that lets you swap out for old ones. So players can have a lot of options without the 3.x splatbook.
I haven't run the Adventure Paths but I love the artwork and writing in them. They give the DM a setting and months worth of encounters for their group.
One thing not mentioned is the setting Glorion. Pathfinder is generic enough you can use the rules and old 3.5 monsters in Greyhawk or whatever world you want. But the Inner sea campaign guide has just been released and the 4 part poster map is great as a side purchase.
*throws water on Dave*
Mike
Herremann the Wise
First Post
You do seem quite edgy and quite defensive about 3.x. For what it's worth, I run a 3.x Age of Worms campaign, a Pathfinder Kingmaker campaign, a 4e homebrew as well as play in a couple of others (3.x and 4e). I read on these boards people criticising elements of each of these - but at no time do I feel the need to crack out the defender shields (except just once actually when some poster decided to take aim at the integrity of the Paizo owners). Sometimes people get things wrong, sometimes people play differently to you and sometimes people have a really good point that makes you re-evaluate your own stance on an issue. I think edition warring happens when people feel that "their style of game play" and thus "they" are under attack, and thus feel the need to defend it. As well, when people attack something purely because it's different to what they do, they are lacking perhaps in perspective, angst happens and instant edition war. This shouldn't however prevent good hearty discussion.
My point is that if you like 3.x that's cool. Appreciate though that other people might not, and some are quite happy to point out the problems the system has given them in their games. It is all opinion, whether validly cast or not and should be taken as that. Personally, I agree with Gameprinter that a lot of 3.x splat stuff caused serious issues in my Age of Worms campaign and so freeing myself from it and going Pathfinder Core/Advanced Player's Guide only for the first time in my Kingmaker campaign (having previously just combined everything in) has been both a breath of fresh air as well as addresses some of the issues I had with 3.x. Just because I like 3.x does not mean I can't criticise it and likewise just because you like it, does not mean that others can't criticise it on a messageboard where talking about this sort of stuff is what it is all about.
I would be very interested to read your opinion on 3.x and Pathfinder because you seem to think that Pathfinder is not an improvement but a step backwards - something that the OP might find quite useful. The point is, it is quite obvious that you are not trying to offend and I'm sure people will take your words in the spirit that they are cast. Likewise I suppose, people should be entitled to that same respect, even if one presents a view quite forcefully rather than with the meekest squeak.
So yeah. I'd be quite interested in your opinion.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
That is also a very opinionated answer. I would not 3.5 splat is not neccesary as you stated above, but I won't say it is better without 3.x splat.
Saying PF is better alone is saying 3.x bring PF down. "Saying you don't need it.", is saying that PF can stand on its own. Those are two completely different things.
To use a real life comparison:
You are better off without Stacy.
You are good enough so that you don't need Stacy.
One is just confirming that a person is good enough to stand on their own. The other is saying Stacy(3.x) only makes things worse.
Now that may not be what you mean, but tone of voice can't be read online.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I think the heated word I used was 'garbage', which caused the misinterpretation of what I was trying to say.
Let's put it this way. I love sushi (not raw fish, but rolled seaweed with rice and spiced pickles). I also love Lasagna. But I would never mix the two in the same dish, that would create horror.
I still play 3x now and again, not as a DM, but as a player, it's still a very good game. But having experienced Pathfinder, I prefer it to 3x. If you want to play 3x do so and have fun doing it. If you want to play Pathfinder that's a good thing too.
Pathfinder was initially designed to be backwards compatible, but after eating that dish for a year, I've discovered that its Sushi-Lasagna and while still edible, its problematic. Pathfinder seems to taste better on its own.
The mix of the two tastes like garbage to me, on their own each have a distinct flavor.
Is that too much metaphor?
A big part of the problem for me regarding 3x, is that is you limited yourself to 4 splats and 3x core, it worked fairly well. But many of the splats didn't work well with each other - there were too many splats, and a balance of the total splats weren't balanced between each other, only between itself and the core.
Trying to do the same betweeen Pathfinder Core and the 3x splats - the problem didn't go away. Pathfinder works more consistently by itself, than trying to mix 3x splats with it.
In a similar fashion there are many 3pp content for PF, though I am sure many of those 3pp supplements are based on themselves alone and PF Core, they aren't necessarily tied to other PF 3pp material. I'm guessing that if you include the supplements from five different 3pp sources and the Core, you might run into similar problems, as Core and 3x splats.
Its the mixture of too many different rules with the Core system that becomes problematic, no matter which edition's material you are using. It takes a careful hand to choose the best material to work for your particular game.
Reading what I say as more than that, and you're inventing stuff. The above is exactly what I mean... YMMV.
GP
PS: Of course its opinion, everything is subjective - I cannot separate opinion from a request on what is the best way to go. I don't know the alternatives, only what I have done and of course its based on opinion - how can it be anything else?
Let's put it this way. I love sushi (not raw fish, but rolled seaweed with rice and spiced pickles). I also love Lasagna. But I would never mix the two in the same dish, that would create horror.
I still play 3x now and again, not as a DM, but as a player, it's still a very good game. But having experienced Pathfinder, I prefer it to 3x. If you want to play 3x do so and have fun doing it. If you want to play Pathfinder that's a good thing too.
Pathfinder was initially designed to be backwards compatible, but after eating that dish for a year, I've discovered that its Sushi-Lasagna and while still edible, its problematic. Pathfinder seems to taste better on its own.
The mix of the two tastes like garbage to me, on their own each have a distinct flavor.
Is that too much metaphor?
A big part of the problem for me regarding 3x, is that is you limited yourself to 4 splats and 3x core, it worked fairly well. But many of the splats didn't work well with each other - there were too many splats, and a balance of the total splats weren't balanced between each other, only between itself and the core.
Trying to do the same betweeen Pathfinder Core and the 3x splats - the problem didn't go away. Pathfinder works more consistently by itself, than trying to mix 3x splats with it.
In a similar fashion there are many 3pp content for PF, though I am sure many of those 3pp supplements are based on themselves alone and PF Core, they aren't necessarily tied to other PF 3pp material. I'm guessing that if you include the supplements from five different 3pp sources and the Core, you might run into similar problems, as Core and 3x splats.
Its the mixture of too many different rules with the Core system that becomes problematic, no matter which edition's material you are using. It takes a careful hand to choose the best material to work for your particular game.
Reading what I say as more than that, and you're inventing stuff. The above is exactly what I mean... YMMV.
GP
PS: Of course its opinion, everything is subjective - I cannot separate opinion from a request on what is the best way to go. I don't know the alternatives, only what I have done and of course its based on opinion - how can it be anything else?
Last edited:
re
3.x was good. It grew too darn big. So many books to keep track of and so much stuff to vet to make sure you didn't have strange spells slipping that messed up encounters with little to no chance of failure.
There are still a handful of those in Pathfinder, but for the most part they are gone. Which helps make Pathfinder easier to run.
But both systems still have the past flavor developed from the time of AD&D. The magic system is still fantastic. You still have the magic arms race. The plethora of magic items. And the unique flavor of the D&D system you don't truly appreciate until it is taken away from you.
3.x was good. It grew too darn big. So many books to keep track of and so much stuff to vet to make sure you didn't have strange spells slipping that messed up encounters with little to no chance of failure.
There are still a handful of those in Pathfinder, but for the most part they are gone. Which helps make Pathfinder easier to run.
But both systems still have the past flavor developed from the time of AD&D. The magic system is still fantastic. You still have the magic arms race. The plethora of magic items. And the unique flavor of the D&D system you don't truly appreciate until it is taken away from you.
I both played and ran 3.5 and I enjoyed it. Yes there was a large amount of splat, but I limited splat use to core and complete (warrior, mage, adventurer and divine) I also allowed the spell compendium, used the magic item compendium when DMing and picked up stormwrack for a very specific campaign I ran for 6 months. True I didn't allow some splat without fleshing it out PC to DM (spell sniper for example, I allowed once because I liked the players ideas on how to use it and wanted to see it run).
In pathfinder, I have only played, though I will be co DMing with my wife for a small homebrew in the next few months. I like how Pazio has done it, I am aware it is backwards compatible but find that most of the things I want are already done. (My Pathfinder wishlist: a scout more like the one in complete adventurer, didn't quite care for the "scout" archtype in APG. Losing the uncanny dodge was too big of a hurt before access to spring attack, and if get pounce or some other similar ability, I still only get sneak damage once
)
In all, you have to try PF to see if you like it or not, end of story. No matter how many people tell you anything about the system, there is no substitute for experience
In pathfinder, I have only played, though I will be co DMing with my wife for a small homebrew in the next few months. I like how Pazio has done it, I am aware it is backwards compatible but find that most of the things I want are already done. (My Pathfinder wishlist: a scout more like the one in complete adventurer, didn't quite care for the "scout" archtype in APG. Losing the uncanny dodge was too big of a hurt before access to spring attack, and if get pounce or some other similar ability, I still only get sneak damage once
)In all, you have to try PF to see if you like it or not, end of story. No matter how many people tell you anything about the system, there is no substitute for experience
Icyshadowlord
First Post
I would be very interested to read your opinion on 3.x and Pathfinder because you seem to think that Pathfinder is not an improvement but a step backwards - something that the OP might find quite useful. The point is, it is quite obvious that you are not trying to offend and I'm sure people will take your words in the spirit that they are cast. Likewise I suppose, people should be entitled to that same respect, even if one presents a view quite forcefully rather than with the meekest squeak.
So yeah. I'd be quite interested in your opinion.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Okay, for the first. I already said why I was being edgy. It was because on another forum (composed primarily of 3.5 fans) we already had so many random troll attacks by PF and 4e fans that I felt like they were all out to just call 3.x games with random slews of profanity, and that mind-set happened to be stuck with me when I slid back here.
As for my actual opinions, I really do not intend to force them on others. The only thing I tried to feed people was the notion of taking a closer look on things before jumping in. Likewise, I do not think that PF is a step forward, but I don't think it's such a huge step backward either, if it can even be called a step backward.
By that I mean that PF isn't really better than 3.x, but it's not really that much worse either. They both have their goods and bads, but ultimately I still prefer 3.x because of the splatbooks and the HUGE amounts of fan-made material (especially the awesome Tome books, which seem to be known better in some other places. Not really sure about that) from which I can pick the parts I like the most.
As for 4e, it plays VERY differently from the other two, and due to that judging it will have to go in a different manner. For one, yes, it did use it's own way of balancing classes. And yes, some say it does not feel like D&D anymore. To me, it's just a new edition that works differently. I sort of like how combat plays in it, but I despised the sudden downplay of RPing aspects my group had (might have been DM incompetence, but I am not that harsh a judge).
The reason why I was so edgy was because one troll went at me when I was in a bad mood, saying "You played 4e wrong because you still like 3.x" and another went "You played PF wrong because you still like 3.x". Now, when I see those trolls, I either ignore them or do a reverse troll on them. But that's beside the point. I am simply saying that I have been wrongly provoked before, and that's why I reacted a bit badly earlier. And I already did apologize about that, so yeah.
I at least understand your anger towards these people, I was attacked on another forum here because what I experienced when I played 4E "was impossible to actually happen" when I was simply relating my own experiences with the system. I related my game experience and the guy attacked everything from my ability to build a character to my playgroup, everything but the system itself.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
A note to IcyShadowLord: I was still playing 2e, 5 years into 3x, so I didn't jump into playing 3x until quite late in its run. In fact for the most part I wasn't playing much RPGs at all for almost a decade - sporadically playing 2e, as that was the game I had the books for.
Right about the time 4e came out, I had begun a side career as a pro fantasy cartographer, creating maps for Mongoose Publishing, Dog House Rulez, Rite Publishing and a number of small publishers and private gamers. I was starting to develop interests in game design/development at about this time too. Of course doing so for 3x so late in its run seemed impractical and I was not interested in being a 3pp for D&D 4e.
So when Pathfinder came out, this became the impetus for me to design game supplements for a 'brand new game' - the timing seemed right. Now I am a game designer/developer creating a project as an imprint under Rite Publishing - Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story.
So I have a special connection to Pathfinder, moreso than 3x or any edition before that, yet I still love all the previous editions. I don't hate any game. But I also feel that playing Pathfinder on its own is a much more enjoyable experience - having said, I tried mixing 3x with PF, and only found continued consternation over that year of play. Seeing others with similar views, I don't think my statements are unfounded nor a slam on any previous edition. I was just casting my recommendations.
Perhaps I should have worded my first post here differently, as I was not trying to start a conflict with anyone - just trying to state my POV. Sorry, it got you all up in angst over it, that was not intentional. I didn't forsee saying so would cause any problems or fears of edition wars - I avoid edition wars and edition war threads on every forum I visit. EW is just a silly exercise in futility.
Play what you want to play and have a good time doing so, that's the only important thing.
GP
Right about the time 4e came out, I had begun a side career as a pro fantasy cartographer, creating maps for Mongoose Publishing, Dog House Rulez, Rite Publishing and a number of small publishers and private gamers. I was starting to develop interests in game design/development at about this time too. Of course doing so for 3x so late in its run seemed impractical and I was not interested in being a 3pp for D&D 4e.
So when Pathfinder came out, this became the impetus for me to design game supplements for a 'brand new game' - the timing seemed right. Now I am a game designer/developer creating a project as an imprint under Rite Publishing - Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story.
So I have a special connection to Pathfinder, moreso than 3x or any edition before that, yet I still love all the previous editions. I don't hate any game. But I also feel that playing Pathfinder on its own is a much more enjoyable experience - having said, I tried mixing 3x with PF, and only found continued consternation over that year of play. Seeing others with similar views, I don't think my statements are unfounded nor a slam on any previous edition. I was just casting my recommendations.
Perhaps I should have worded my first post here differently, as I was not trying to start a conflict with anyone - just trying to state my POV. Sorry, it got you all up in angst over it, that was not intentional. I didn't forsee saying so would cause any problems or fears of edition wars - I avoid edition wars and edition war threads on every forum I visit. EW is just a silly exercise in futility.
Play what you want to play and have a good time doing so, that's the only important thing.
GP
Similar Threads
