+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Considering Switching to Pathfinder

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Castle Eastwatch
    Posts
    15,466

    Default Considering Switching to Pathfinder

    I have tried to be a good supporter of 4e. It made a lot of changes that I felt were positive, and I digged some of the new archetypes of the game (i.e. the warlock).

    Encounters, tonight...I suspect it's not representative of the game as a whole. Yet, the feel just seems off somehow.

    With the announcement of 5e, I've been looking back on my relationship with D&D. My beginnings was with 2e, and that's where I've played the most. I've played quite a bit of 3e as well, and did game design for it. I never got much of a chance to play with 4e.

    Here's the thing. I want an experience that is familiar. I want a game that I can convert to with a fair amount of ease. I want a game that Dragonlance can work with. And gorram it, I want a group again.

    Maybe I'm just feeling down after Encounters, or maybe it's just late. But I think I want a different experience.
    Trampas Whiteman
    ---DragonHelm--->



    Long Live the Lance!

    "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Dragonlance Nexus!"
    -David "Big Mac" Shepheard

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Stafford, UK
    Posts
    2,855

    Default

    Is it easier to find groups playing Pathfinder than 4e?
    I agree Encounters are really off-putting. Not exactly my idea of roleplaying. Actually, if you didn't know it was supposed to be a roleplaying game, it might look something else entirely (e.g. Descent.)
    Overall, I would say go with what you like most. Seeing that Dragonlance exists mostly for older editions, it might save you not a few hassles to simply go the Pathfinder route (and why not, 3e?)
    I too have been through a lot of changes of late, games-wise. I have run a very simplified 4e campaign for a few months, but even that was still too complex, so I have returned to Mentzer-edited D&D which gives me exactly the D&D experience I want: easy to prepare, easy to run, with enough depth to work at all levels of play. That's where I am going to stay for a while; at least until 5e comes out, and if it REALLY is as simple as they say, I might switch.
    It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you [...] YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER.
    E. G. Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Manerbio (BS) - ITALY
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonhelm View Post
    I have tried to be a good supporter of 4e. It made a lot of changes that I felt were positive, and I digged some of the new archetypes of the game (i.e. the warlock).

    Encounters, tonight...I suspect it's not representative of the game as a whole. Yet, the feel just seems off somehow.

    With the announcement of 5e, I've been looking back on my relationship with D&D. My beginnings was with 2e, and that's where I've played the most. I've played quite a bit of 3e as well, and did game design for it. I never got much of a chance to play with 4e.

    Here's the thing. I want an experience that is familiar. I want a game that I can convert to with a fair amount of ease. I want a game that Dragonlance can work with. And gorram it, I want a group again.

    Maybe I'm just feeling down after Encounters, or maybe it's just late. But I think I want a different experience.
    Well, in this case the simplest option seems to be just sticking with 3e in your case. I don't know much about Pathfinder but I guess you would probably have to learn new stuff to play that, which might even be neat stuff but it means extra work anyway.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    a mage shop in Adlatum
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    DH, I am partial to PF so take this with a grain of salt but i think you might dig it. there are some changes but nothing that, IMO, caused any problems. only enhanced the fun i had with 3/3.5

    there is a wide range of supplements and adventures that support PF, you can convert 3.5 over to PF with little effort, and you may be more likely to find a PF group as compared to 4E (seems that way in my locale anyway).

    i cut my teeth on 1E, didn't do much 2E, really put time in with 3/3.5 but i have become an ardent supporter of PF.
    "For by fate, even the gods are cast down. Weep ye all with me." - Raistlin Majere

    CTHULHU 2012!! - Vote for the lesser evil

    Dagartha's Character Roster:

    Vredkin Orenstaal - NG male human barbarian 1 (Kendermage's PF Organized Play campaign)

    Ibrivhinai Mvashti - CG male half-orc cleric of Desna (Heron's PF Jade Regent campaign)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    6,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firebat View Post
    ...I guess you would probably have to learn new stuff to play that...
    Not really. Pathfinder is VERY close to 3.5. Skills have been simplified, classes have more toys, and some aspects of combat have been somewhat streamlined (such as grapple bull rush, etc.). Some spells and feats have been tweaked because Paizo felt they needed tweaking but it's all within the 3.5 framework. Best of all, you can use your existing 3.5 library with VERY little effort.

    Keep in mind that Paizo's mindset when going with Pathfinder RPG was that they felt that D&D 3.5 was the best system with which to tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell. Since the D&D 3.5 core books were going out of print, they needed to put them back into production (which was possible thanks to the OGL), and it was a perfect opportunity for Paizo to tweak some issues that D&D 3.5 had and simplify a few things (such as skills and combat maneuvers) while they were at it.

    The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game presents the same experience gamingwise that D&D 3.5 does. It's just cooler (in my opinion, of course!).
    Heine Kim Stick

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    32

    Default Sticking to 3.5

    I've stuck to 3.5 because it took me so long to learn the rules after nearly a lifetime of 2nd edition. I don't want to go through all that again.

    When I feel like an update, I'd probably go with Pathfinder.

    While I'd never go back to 1st or 2nd edition, there are some elements that got lost in 3rd, that I'd like to recapture. Can't quite put my finger on them, but it might be that the ruleset was more open to DM discretion than the well-thought out 3rd ed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,737

    Default

    Savage Worlds my friend. It's the only game system you need.
    Currently Reading: Stardust, Neil Gaiman

    “There's always, always a choice. My options might really, truly suck, but that doesn't mean there isn't a choice.”

    - Harry Dresden -

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kendermage View Post
    Savage Worlds my friend. It's the only game system you need.
    I don't know; I hear it's not so great at high-end supers, so you might want M&M for that.

    (I've been on a major SW buying/reading kick lately, and I'm thinking about porting the Fifth Age over to it.)
    Matthew L. Martin, Chronicler of the Martinian Canon, the Anti-Canon, Desolate Krynn and numerous other 'wrong' versions of Krynn.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Manerbio (BS) - ITALY
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenmantle View Post
    Not really. Pathfinder is VERY close to 3.5. Skills have been simplified, classes have more toys, and some aspects of combat have been somewhat streamlined (such as grapple bull rush, etc.). Some spells and feats have been tweaked because Paizo felt they needed tweaking but it's all within the 3.5 framework. Best of all, you can use your existing 3.5 library with VERY little effort.

    Keep in mind that Paizo's mindset when going with Pathfinder RPG was that they felt that D&D 3.5 was the best system with which to tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell. Since the D&D 3.5 core books were going out of print, they needed to put them back into production (which was possible thanks to the OGL), and it was a perfect opportunity for Paizo to tweak some issues that D&D 3.5 had and simplify a few things (such as skills and combat maneuvers) while they were at it.

    The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game presents the same experience gamingwise that D&D 3.5 does. It's just cooler (in my opinion, of course!).
    Oh nice. Maybe when RL stops interfering with my plans I will actually be able to try it out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Heaventide, Dhu
    Posts
    4,695

    Default

    Pathfinder is a damn good system. It has some nice upgrades and fixes from 3.5, but yet it keeps the general toolkit feel which makes building characters and creatures a lot of fun.

    Plus I do get more of a feeling from Paizo about them caring about their products than I do from WotC. But that's just my on personal sense on things.

    There are reasons why I jumped ship from D&D and hadn't looked back.

    Well... beyond the seething hatred.
    "A payment. My life will simply be a payment. But only when all are free... My fault."
    - The Prophet, as recorded from testimony in FyxZharar, 431 AD

    All must prepare. The Prophet has entered the war.

    Projects (Dragonlance, and Non-DL):
    "The Dying Towers of Ryst: An Achanian Tale"
    "Chef Nightly" (iOS/Android)
    The Adlatum Project - Sourcebook Available
    Art of Psycha Durmont

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts