The Great D&D Schism: The End of an age and the scattering of gamers

[GMforPowergamers]

If I am correct you are counting 3e, 3.5, and pathfinder all in there (correct me if I am wrong). That is three versions (based on the same chaise) for 14 years... at the very least you have to combine 1e and 2e (since they too were backwards compatible) to compare life spans... I believe that is 20 years...

Let's just clear something up real quick. 3.0 and 3.5 are not separate editions.

Basically you have 3rd edition with Pathfinder carrying the flag.

Also, look at all the games that have spawned from the d20 engine such as Star Wars, Elric of Melnibone, Cthuhlu, d20 modern etc... Don't remember too many games that were created from the 1 and 2nd edition models.

2e was more compatible with 1e than Pathfinder is with 3.0. Many spells are different, and the classes were all retooled for 3.5. You can say that PF and 3.5E are somewhat compatible, so that would give you a life of 10 years or so now?

Other than a few tweaks, adding NWPs and buffing up monsters, 2e was pretty much the same as 1e.

I didn't even call them editions in my original post...

If I am correct you are counting 3e, 3.5, and pathfinder all in there (correct me if I am wrong). That is three versions (based on the same chaise) for 14 years...

 

[Desdichado]

I am not saying 1e to 2e was a bigger shift than 3.5 to 4e (i think the later is the biggest change we have had). Just that the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was small, less of a change than 1E to 2E.

Yeah, I know.. sorry, that was an unrelated comment, not meant to imply that I thought (or thought that you thought) that there were significant similarities between 3.5 and 4e.

Clearly I disagree that the shift from 3 to 3.5 was smaller than the shift from 1e to 2e, though. I think that they were directly comparable.

That is one of my biggest complaints with pathfinder. It is just backwards compatible enough if you squint, but since every race and class go an over hall you can't just take a 3.5 book and use it.

In other words, it's not really comparable at all, I think. Not without some major work, anyway.

I have played in 4 pathfinder games, I have turned down playing in more then that, I will probably never play it again. There is no Warlock, there is no Swordsage, there is no Spell theif, and there is no hexblade... and I am yet to find a DM in the real world that will let me even take a feat from 3.5 inless it has been updated to pathfinder...

That's a little silly... feats are one of the things that are directly importable from one to the other. Classes and races, not so much, but feats? C'mon.

At Conn Con last year my friend's younger sister was ridiculed to the point where she left in tears because she only every played D&D and sat down at a pathfinder game and didn't understand the rules they were using...

That's evidence of schism.

Just as often, this argument is revisited by posters trying to show that 4E is the JUST AS SUCCESSFUL AS 3E because 3.x is really two editions, each of which ran as long as 4E.

Either way, it's still tiresome.

Indeed. I have no dog in either race, since I never updated to 4e, and have drifted away from 3.5 and/or Pathfinder. Plus, I don't have any interest in promoting my edition at the expense of any other anyway, even if I was playing one of those.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's a little silly... feats are one of the things that are directly importable from one to the other. Classes and races, not so much, but feats? C'mon.

The feats in question (2 different campaigns)
- Magic reserve feats... My wizard (Well mystic theurge if it matters) wanted to take force darts (I think that was the name ranged touch attack deals 1d4 per level of highest force spell in prep) I was high enough to have wall of force prepred
- 3 feats for my Magus, first I wanted the one that gave me tomb of battle maneuver's and I was told no... then I wanted Mage slayer (not even that optimized I would loose caster levels) then the straw that broke the camels back was a feat that let you deal +1d6 damage the first round of combat on anyone that hasn't acted yet...

One of the games I turned down I was told was going to be pathfinder Ebberon, but no artificers, no warforged, no dragon marks because there was nothing from 3.5 allowed... I was told to play an alchemist instead and that was when I just said 'never mind'

That's evidence of schism.

It is evidence of mean people who did mean things... I'm not sure about the whole thing (I was on the other side of the convention doing board games and heard hours later or I would have gone to the table myself)

 

[billd91]

I have played in 4 pathfinder games, I have turned down playing in more then that, I will probably never play it again. There is no Warlock, there is no Swordsage, there is no Spell theif, and there is no hexblade... and I am yet to find a DM in the real world that will let me even take a feat from 3.5 inless it has been updated to pathfinder...

Well, there are a lot of factors that will determine whether a GM will allow any of those things or 3.5 materials in their game. For example, I've got PDFs of all of the Pathfinder books on my iPad and a couple of apps to make finding and looking up rules easier. Those two issues alone make me far less willing to incorporate 3.5 materials in the PF games I run. I don't really want to have to lug print versions of 3.5 books around to run PF when I can just tote my iPad around for that. Plus, I don't like the warlock, so he's not going to make it into a game anyway.

At Conn Con last year my friend's younger sister was ridiculed to the point where she left in tears because she only every played D&D and sat down at a pathfinder game and didn't understand the rules they were using...

That is unfortunate and probably more damning of the table she sat down at than anything else. Any group using ridicule to drive a new player from the game is a black mark on the hobby.

That said, what D&D did she have experience with? If she just played 4e or just 1e/2e, I can see not understanding the rules of a 3e-based game. But if she was experienced with 3e, the rules they were using should have been pretty recognizable and she should have done just fine with a little guidance of the experienced players at the table explaining the newer subsystems added to the main chassis. Too bad none of them were adult enough to do that...

EDIT: Actually scratch that, these are RPGs. She should have been able to do fine with any RPG, even being completely cold on the rules, with a little guidance from the players at the table. (Caveats would apply to particularly advanced scenarios that might require really in-depth knowledge of the rules - and, let's face it, those are comparatively rare, particularly at cons.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That said, what D&D did she have experience with? If she just played 4e or just 1e/2e, I can see not understanding the rules of a 3e-based game. But if she was experienced with 3e, the rules they were using should have been pretty recognizable and she should have done just fine with a little guidance of the experienced players at the table explaining the newer subsystems added to the main chassis. Too bad none of them were adult enough to do that...

She started playing back in 3.5 (as a teen she just hit 21 in Nov) but has only played 4e since 2009 or so. My understanding is she sat down being told they were playing D&D and she asked 3 or 4, and was told 3... but she didn't know about skills no longer being class/cross class (you just get +3 to class skills in PF) she didn't have any idea what a CMD is (It is a new defense against disarms and grapples in PF) and she was going to make a paladin but the smite is completely different and so is the healing (it is a d6 lay hands instead of base points in PF)...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

Smite Evil (Su)

Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.

Lay on Hands (Su)

Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paladin level × her Charisma bonus. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn’t have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.

Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. The paladin decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin

Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.

In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.

Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.

Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.

They told her "Girls are bad at math" because at 5th level she put 8 ranks in a skill but you can only put 5 ranks in pathfinder...

EDIT: Actually scratch that, these are RPGs. She should have been able to do fine with any RPG, even being completely cold on the rules, with a little guidance from the players at the table. (Caveats would apply to particularly advanced scenarios that might require really in-depth knowledge of the rules - and, let's face it, those are comparatively rare, particularly at cons.)

1st they were jerks... like the worst of RPG stereo type jerks

second, if you are used to X or Y then run into B it takes a bit to get used to it...

 

[Sadras]

They told her "Girls are bad at math"

That I can kind of see happening but rather in a comedic cheeky display, with no real harm meant - but to bring her to tears and literally have her leave the table that's just plain nasty on their side.

 

[billd91]

She started playing back in 3.5 (as a teen she just hit 21 in Nov) but has only played 4e since 2009 or so. My understanding is she sat down being told they were playing D&D and she asked 3 or 4, and was told 3... but she didn't know about skills no longer being class/cross class (you just get +3 to class skills in PF) she didn't have any idea what a CMD is (It is a new defense against disarms and grapples in PF) and she was going to make a paladin but the smite is completely different and so is the healing (it is a d6 lay hands instead of base points in PF)...

Oh, I'm quite familiar with the differences and enjoy most of them. PF's smite is much better and less wasteful if the paladin happens to roll poorly for his smite attack. And I'm pretty sure I'd be able to explain it just fine to her if she showed up wanting to generate a paladin at my table. But then, when I GM, part of my job is to guide players through the rules if they're not clear on the particulars. I may not always need to do so if my players are all good with the rules, but if I approach a table of unknown players without that in my head, I've shirked my job... badly.

They told her "Girls are bad at math" because at 5th level she put 8 ranks in a skill but you can only put 5 ranks in pathfinder...

I'd probably have just about murdered them for that since it was a totally reasonable mistake to make going from one edition to the other. I think PF's method is much more user-friendly, ultimately, and I have no doubt she's good enough at math to pick it up given an appropriate explanation.

1st they were jerks... like the worst of RPG stereo type jerks

second, if you are used to X or Y then run into B it takes a bit to get used to it...

Well, sure, but a 5 minute explanation could have covered the basics pretty well, particularly when followed up by reminders when the powers are actually used. That they didn't do so and, worse, used it as a point of ridicule, was totally obnoxious. These guys represent the nadir of tabletop gaming and that applies to any game or edition of a game.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have played in 4 pathfinder games, I have turned down playing in more then that, I will probably never play it again. There is no Warlock, there is no Swordsage, there is no Spell theif, and there is no hexblade... and I am yet to find a DM in the real world that will let me even take a feat from 3.5 inless it has been updated to pathfinder...

I wouldn't use it as evidence that PF is a different edition, but "No 3.x material!" is certainly a thing. Which to me is odd, because if I were DMing PF, I'd think "The more options, the merrier!"

But the prevalence of "No 3.x material!" is probably related to the prevalence of "Core only!" in both 3.x and PF. I don't understand the appeal, but there it is.

/tangent

 

[Desdichado]

It is evidence of mean people who did mean things... I'm not sure about the whole thing (I was on the other side of the convention doing board games and heard hours later or I would have gone to the table myself)

Yeah, I mean who knows, and it doesn't take a big schism for people to act like jerks. But certainly in this case there seemed to be some level of ambient contempt or dislike of folks who used other editions.

One thing that I think is sadly a bit too common amongst Pathfinder fandom, bless their hearts, is that many of them have become very factionalized. They dislike D&D, WotC, and are so rah-rah Paizo that they're kinda missing out on anything else that's going on in the industry. I think a bunch of them are that way because they felt burned by the way WotC handled them with the roll-out of 4e, and they felt listened to and respected by the way Paizo rolled out Pathfinder.

So, in spite of my warnings to be careful about what you call, I do think it is indeed very likely that D&D fandom was fractured by a number of things that all happened at more or less the same time (announcement of 4e, OSRIC and the retro-clones passed a potential legal challenge, and thereby enabled the OSR, Paizo went their own way with Pathfinder, specifically marketing to folks who didn't want to change to 4e, etc.) and that feelings run very deeply still over that schism. I think it's a real thing.

I'm just not particularly upset by it. I actually think it's been good overall. The only downside is that it's potentially harder to find players for the game you want to play. Since I'm not moving anytime soon, and my gaming group seems pretty stable, I think I'm OK on that front for the time being.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, I'm quite familiar with the differences and enjoy most of them. PF's smite is much better and less wasteful if the paladin happens to roll poorly for his smite attack. And I'm pretty sure I'd be able to explain it just fine to her if she showed up wanting to generate a paladin at my table.

I could defiantl see the benfit of the newer smite (Notice I don't dislike it) and anyone who wasn't a.... never mind what I think those guys were....

I'd probably have just about murdered them for that since it was a totally reasonable mistake to make going from one edition to the other. I think PF's method is much more user-friendly, ultimately, and I have no doubt she's good enough at math to pick it up given an appropriate explanation.

when she went on a rant that night her argument was if someone had given her a book instead of just saying "Yea just make a pally" it might have worked better.

Well, sure, but a 5 minute explanation could have covered the basics pretty well, particularly when followed up by reminders when the powers are actually used. That they didn't do so and, worse, used it as a point of ridicule, was totally obnoxious. These guys represent the nadir of tabletop gaming and that applies to any game or edition of a game.

again where it is an example of the two games being different it is also a much more blatent example of edition warriors... in this case in real life...

I wouldn't use it as evidence that PF is a different edition, but "No 3.x material!" is certainly a thing. Which to me is odd, because if I were DMing PF, I'd think "The more options, the merrier!"

But the prevalence of "No 3.x material!" is probably related to the prevalence of "Core only!" in both 3.x and PF. I don't understand the appeal, but there it is.

/tangent

The funny part is the DMs in question never did core only and still don't... you can play anything from piazo or this one third party that did psionics (I don't remember the name) in half of those games, but nothing from WotC....