Considering Switching to Pathfinder

[Dragonhelm]

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.

[Turambar]

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.

[firebat]

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.

[Dagartha]

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.

[Ravenmantle]

...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!).

[landryan]

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.

[Kendermage]

Savage Worlds my friend. It's the only game system you need.

[Matthew L. Martin]

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.)

[firebat]

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.

[Carteeg_Struve]

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.