Comments on: 3 Reasons Why I’m Not Running Pathfinder

By: Frank Pont

Frank Pont — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:14:02 +0000

I tried playing 4th ed for 18 months. I judged for WOTC in 3.5 and 4.0. I loved Living Greyhawk. But 4.0+LFR just did not fill my DnD craving the way 3.5+LG did. Sadly Pathfinder+PFS is not anywhere as good as 3.5+LG but I think Pathfinder works better for me than 4.0.

I have lots of good friends who play 4.0 and I hope WOTC continues to provide an entertaining game for them. So far Paizo has done a great job. The moderators remarks about Paizo not being as proven is well taken. Paizo’s publishing DnD is not the same thing as keeping a game system alive. But it has been three years now and so far so good.

By: Zak

Zak — Sun, 09 May 2010 08:31:59 +0000

The only thing 4E has in common with Dungeons and Dragons is the name on the books. Beyond the name this an entirely new game. The fact that so many blogs and sites are talking about Pathfinder now proves it. WotC really dropped the ball on Dungeons and Dragons. 4E may be a fun game, it may even be a great game in it´s own right, but, it is a Dungeons and Dragons game in name only.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:38:56 +0000

And, like I said above: I HOPE PATHFINDER DOES WELL.

Competition is good for the marketplace. If Pathfinder continues to do well, WotC will have to continue to bring their “A Game” (for lack of a better phrase). That makes the whole industry better.

For *me*, I just prefer 4E.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:32:56 +0000

@Tim –

On any random day, like today, take a look at the sales rankings in the Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Gaming category at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/4442/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last

13 of the top 25 bestsellers in that category are 4E, including #1 and #2.

3.5 D&D have 2 books.

3 or so are WotC novels.

There are 2 or 3 Pathfinder products.

Of course, Amazon doesn’t reflect overall market share, but I think it’s a good indicator.

Pathfinder is selling fine. But it’s not selling like D&D.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:57:40 +0000

Good debate here. I loved 3E when it first came out because of its revolutionary approach that fixed a lot of 2Es problems. And I loved 2E when it first came out and thought it fixed a lot of problems AD&D had.
I grumbled when 3.5 came out so fast and made me buy new books, but I recognized they plugged a few holes. After that I felt the 3.x rules became very bloated and broken quickly. I stopped playing D&D awhile and started playing other games, looking for the real “Roleplaying” experience over rules crunching. I even looked at a lot of interesting games that really tried to bridge roleplaying and rules mechanics, like say Dogs in the Vineyard.

I really liked 4E when it came out, and I still like it. I think it provides a solid core for a fantasy adventure game. The dependence on maps and miniatures I still find to be a minor weakness, but I also do like the tactical element of play. That focus on tactics is what replaced 3.x’s focus on strategy.

The best way I have seen the difference between editions summed up is that 3.x is a Fantasy Simulation and Resource Management game. The rules try and simulate a fantasy setting. If you swing a sword, you swing a sword, etc. Resource Management is how you “win” – you manage spell slots, potions, scrolls, etc. You can beat encounters you normally shouldn’t by clever application of spells, gallons of healing potions and reams of cure spells, etc. The right strategy is what wins.

On the other hand, 4E is a Fantasy Adventure game. The rules are not at all simulationist. The attack powers you use are often fanciful, and the mechanics are metagame by design. Encounter and Daily Powers, for example. Tactics are what wins the day in 4E. Character abilities and roles provide synergy that the PCs utilize. You can’t “cheat” by clever resource management. You can’t bring 50 Healing potions to a 4E fight like you could in 3.5. The Healing Surge mechanics don’t allow for that sort of thing. You likewise can’t bring Scrolls and such to beat an encounter with brute force.

Both have their merits and flaws.

I find the RP arguments hollow. Roleplaying is what you make of it. You don’t need the rules to tell you how to roleplay. The one argument that might hold some water is that since the 4E combat experience is far more engaged, there may be less opportunity for RP. But by the same token you move away from the problem often seen in 3.x (and earlier editions) of disinterested combat “Hey John, its your turn.” “What? Oh, umm.. I hit it with my sword.” “Which one?” “The one that hit me last time.” “That one is dead.” “Oh… umm, whichever is closest.” “::sigh:: OK, roll.” That scenario you should not see with 4E.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:19:36 +0000

Pathfinder is outselling D&D 4E on Amazon by 10 to 1… I think it’s time to update your projections

By: James T

James T — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:20:26 +0000

Background: I have been gaming since I was introduced to D&D Basic Editiion back in 1982.

I was an avid 3.5 gamer many years ago until many from my group scattered to distant parts of the country. We have satiated our gaming needs with various online games line Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, and now D&D Online. We took our time playing the NWN2 campaign and it lasted over a year. It never really came close to our D&D3.5 experience, but it was the next best thing. We also tried various ways to play virtually, but they never really worked out.

Once I heard 4e was coming out I was really excited. I pre-ordered the books and snuck them into work so I could read the rules. After reading them, I had a feeling like I was reading the rules for one of those card games like Magic The Gathering or something. It did not see like the rules were written for the seasoned rpg player. I definitely felt I was not the audience they intended this new version for. So…I never looked for a group so I could play 4e. I just was not interested.

Since I had ordered the 4e books from Paizo, I was on their mailing list. When I heard about Pathfinder, I was very interested. I read through the BETA stuff and thought it was a good start. I bought the rule book when it came out and was impressed. The fact that many of the aspects of combat are simpler with respect to grappling, bull rush, etc, is great. I really like the way they handle skills and the changes to spells (both additions and deletions) make the game feel very fresh.

I started playing in a Pathfinder campaign last night and it was wonderful. We played for almost 12 hours. Everyone is happy with the rules. It is great to be playing again. In fact, the group I am playing with was running a 3.5 campaign up until recently. I introduced on of their players to Pathfinder and within a month they decided to switch to it.

Pathifinder may not be called D&D, but they have sure captured the essence of 3.5 (and earlier) with the new ruleset. In my opinion, 4e did not do this.

James T

By: True Believer

True Believer — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:25:28 +0000

Firstly, i’d like to say that defining D&D as “what’s on the box” is less than useless. I understand that D&D is a proven product, with 30 years of experience, but there were three (point five) editions in that those thirty-some years, with each edition being a fairly major change in gameplay dynamics. But, in each of those editions, the style of play were all similar. Yes, from 2 to 3 you change the way armor works from “smaller is better” to “larger is better”, and you added feats and skill ranks rather than simple skill sets, but the feel of the game remained fairly unchanged. You played a group of adventurers, going on wacky adventures. Wizards played different from warriors played different from theives played different from clerics. Even though these played different, you could also roleplay, alot. If you wanted a cowardly yet suave gentleman to pursue the local princesses, you made a high charisma low strength rogue or bard, essentially useless in battle, but could win the heart of any damsel. It was really the fact that there were multiple facets of play that made D&D… D&D!
4e lost that. I will admit, it is a fairly good system. You can play an elf, and go into a tower to fight a wizard, and on your way find a map to a treasure guarded by a dragon. Very in tune with D&D. It even uses the same dice, and cosmology. But, it is lacking the essence of D&D, “disbelief”. Whenever I played 4e, i very much FELT i was playing a game. The character classes were different in function, but all played very similarily. The combat abilities (which are the ONLY abilities) were very generic. You roll d20, add your classes big modifier, and try to beat his defense. I imagine, if you took all of the abilities, put them in level apropriate groups and “grab-bagged them” you would result in a fairly balanced alternate class.
4e is a good D&D combat game. But it is not a good Role-Playing-Game.
In elementary school, we made up our own role playing game, called “Studs and Duds”tm. it used only one dice, we had no board, and just drew a map on a piece of loose leaf. our characters had HP, some GP and a weapon if we were lucky. Battles consisted of “you meet this, what do you do?” “i’ll stab it in the face!” “you hit and deal x damage”. Very simple combat mechanics. What made this game fun was that we role played the hell out of it. One guy ended up tied to a chair, in a tree house, repeatedly asking his captor for pie, before kicking the angry dwarf out the door. And how does 85 pages on +1-+5 flaming firebrands make that any more fun?
Piazo went ahead and used a template that they thought was a good role-playing game (3.5), spiffed it up to be more fun, and is now selling it under the Pathfinder name. The fact that you’re not playing it because it is “not D&D” is nonsense. This isnt Mac vs PC. This is more like Vista (4e) vs an optimized XP(PF). The only problem is that WotC won’t publish Pathfinder, even though many people would prefer a slightly changed 3 rather than the completely new 4, because it would compete with their new, mass media 4e. The Pathfinder people knew that there would be people who play D&D for the role playing rather than the combat, which is evident with its somewhat superiority over Warhammer and the like. They provided a non affiliated “D&D” system that fills that large niche, while the game that now has the namesake of D&D is now being shelved by most gamers. How is a game that has little roleplaying value (4e) supposed to replace THE roleplaying game?
Metaphore: If 3.5 was a man named James Steenson III, who had two sons, one named James Steenson IV, and one Aflred Pennyweather. Alfred looked exactly like his father, and acted as similar. James had only vague similarities to the physical and personality traits of the father. Which son is more like the father?

Now let’s all be adults and pretend we’re elves and wizards.

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:19:14 +0000

Having now actually played both systems, I’d like to respond to some of your observations for not switching. Maybe you’ll reconsider!

Well, even though Pathfinder has yet to release its Bestiary, we’ve had a great deal of fun playing the Pathfinder system. With 575 pages of text, and a very good index, we were able to start gaming immediately, and found that the game mechanics fluid and engaging. Combat is faster than 3.5, and more interesting than D&D 4e. My group also enjoys the return of many fantastic AD&D 2nd Edition spells and magic items that were dropped in 3e and 4e. After playing for a month now, based on the amount of fun and excitement with each adventure, I really believe that the Paizo product is just excellent, and has already proven itself. It is basing itself off a product with a proven record of success.

I think what this means is that at last Hasbro’s D&D will stop being the ‘face’ of the RPG industry. TSR, Wizards and Hasbro have a history of stifling competitors and innovation. The fact that Pathfinder isn’t D&D, but is still doing well, should ultimately be beneficial to all gamers and encourage the growth of the gaming industry. The fact that Paizo is indeed its own unique company is a positive to me, not a minus. Hasbro, in my opinion, really came up short in this effort [4e]; and I’d like to see Paizo gain all the disenfranchised gamers as a result.

Concerning the resolution of 3rd Edition D&D problems, I think Pathfinder does a good job. Certainly not perfect, but a much better effort then Hasbro’s 4e. In addition to what I’ve already mentioned, Pathfinder cleaned up many glaring problems in the combat system and game play, it streamlined and introduced new skills and feats, made the classes more unique and with better abilities; and it allows for the ready conversion of old campaigns and material to its system. D&D 4e however, we found to be overly complicated and ridiculously simple at the same time. All the characters had the same abilities; sure they had different names and different sources perhaps, but every character could hit and push someone. We found the spells to be unexciting and the published material to be ridiculous. I’ll refrain from discussing the relative merits of tieflings or dragonborn. Maybe 4e solved some of 3rd Editions flaws, but it did it by homogenizing the game into something tedious and unimaginative.

Well maybe you’ll be convinced Bob. I don’t have a pathological hatred of D&D, I loved 1st edition way back in the day, but the game that spawned online MMO’s and countless books has basically changed itself into a third-rate computer game that uses paper and pencil (and dice occasionally). Maybe this will wake up the folks at Hasbro, but until then I’ll be running Pathfinder.

By: M.

M. — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:19:48 +0000

Bob,

“How is it cruel, apathetic, inhumane or immature to say “I’m sorry some people got laid off, but it doesn’t affect whether or not I like the game?””

This isn’t what you said at all. You said it’s not like they sacked your friend as if you couldn’t give a damn if anyone loses their job as long as it doesn’t effect you personally, hence the charge of apathy, etc. Neither did you stop at how it wouldn’t effect your appreciation of the game. You said it wouldn’t change your opinion of a company.

It’s not that Hasbro sacked Worker X, Bob. It’s that there is a culture of industrial injustice within the company. You will find numerous threads on RPG.net and Wizards and Paizo where people who have been gaming for years are now critiquing the labour and market policies of Hasbro and making a stand against the company for these practices. You made it clear with your earlier comment that we can’t all be as conscionable as one another but do keep in mind that some of us can and do enjoy the right to not give money to unconscionable assholes. With that said…

You’re entitled to your opinion of 4e as much as anyone and if you’re enjoying the new system with your group or groups then wonderful.