Community

Aug 8, 2012 -- 5:40PM, Garthanos wrote:

Aug 8, 2012 -- 5:34PM, Valdark wrote:

Well except for the original PHB that is.

Its a fair argument that they could have used a few more months initially. I admit to not seeing the game till about a year in to it so they had already released a bunch of elements which made it feel more complete.

I had the unfortunate experience of getting the first print on day one.  

I made it through about 3 months of the errata process and can honestly say that when you find someone strongly opposed to 4e they were probably like me.  Diehard D&D fans willing to grab the product and give it a fair shake on brand name alone.  When expectations were shattered and errata abounded many of us wrote off the edition.

After all we have this history of seeing each additional supplement breaking the system further and are given not only a broken core but one that leaves out bards and gnomes in favor of more exotic options etc.  we all expected things to get worse not better.  

Were we wrong.  It seems that just maybe we were.  But when I have over $100 worth of first run 4e books sitting on my shelf that are unusable without errata I'm less likely to invest further.

And being from a generation that waited for 2e online tools that never came and that values printed material above electronic I find the online sources ill suited for my table.

This doesn't mean that 4e didn't do things right or that this new edition doesn't need the input of its players.  

It just means that I'd like you to see where many of us are coming from.  Even though some of us lack in tact (I have my moments to be sure) 

Aug 8, 2012 -- 3:52PM, SilasTheBodyguard wrote:

I'm not debating that they are in Pathfinder and I am surely not saying that Pathfinder is any worse a product (I am personally really interested in it, although my preferred game at present is 3.5 - purely because I don't have time to read Pathfinder), what I am pointing out is that they same in 3.5 - and when the arguments continually center around S0D, SOS, I thought it prudent to point out that 3.5 represent the same treatment of these supposed problems as Pathfinder - If they are not a problem for Pathfinder, how can they be viewed as problems in 3.5?

OK, now that you put it this way I agree with you.  Keep in mind that when I was talking to Tony I wasn't pimping a "side" but more just telling about insane spell combos generated in Pathfinder (as well as 3.5) and how those spells and combos were actually bigger game breakers than any SoD.  He asked how the Pathfinder SoDs were and I posted some up for him so he, and anyone else reading can make their own conclusions.

Yes, if you don't like these spells or they caused you grief in 3.5, they will in Pathfinder too.

The big difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is in the details.  The core classes look and read the same as they do in 3.5, but are different all the same just enough to give one who has mastered 3.5 fits. 

A Couple of examples:  Wizards get 1d6 hp instead of 1d4.  Cantrips are basically at wills that don't run out.  Priests have a 30' burst heal that can become extremely epic (Channel Positive Energy) by level 10.  Priests get 2 domains instead of one and they grant abilities that are different from their 3.5 counterparts.  While many of the spells are exactly the same, there are more that are slightly different enough to really confuse a knowledgeable 3.5 player who is not used to Pathfinder.

Fighters are a little different in Pathfinder too.  They get buffs and love.  Armor penalties soften and vanish with level.  They do more damage.  Feats like Cleave trigger on a hit as opposed to trigger upon the death of a foe.  It is easier to get reach.  There are a whole lot more spells in all casting classes that more effectively buff and aid combatants.

At the same time, there are rules differences between the two games.  Grappling, tripping, bull rushing, etc. is much different in PF vs 3.5.  AoOs in Pathfinder do not stop an advancing foe.  Combat Reflexes can be used on the same foe on the same round for each time he provokes an AoO in PF.  How a concentration check for spell casting when hit or in combat is different too-- there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.  There are many of these tiny variations.

And of course, Pathfinder has different classes, the most notable being the Summoner, Oracle and Gunslinger.  To be sure, these probably existed in some form in one of the ridiculous number of splats and 3rd party books for 3e, but these are core in PF. 

The monsters in Pathfinder are over all much tougher and hit harder.  In short, they were designed with the power bloat the 3.5 system can create.  However, the "fix" seems to have only added to the problem and it makes the disparity between weak builds and strong builds that much more difficult to reconcile for a DM.  Also, I swear every damn critter in PF has a 10' reach or better (Ok not every creature but it feels like it) making fights take longer as players try to close in without getting clobbered.

***Disclaimer:  This is neither an endorsement or a slam upon Pathfinder, 3.5e, 4e, the Vancian System or AEDU.  I am merely citing my personal experiences with Pathfinder.  I have been playing in and DMing PF an average of two nights a week since its beta. I enjoy Pathfinder, but I feel there are problems with it too.  Pathfinder is officially declared by Paizo to be backward compatible with 3.5.  For the most part it is, but for those parts where it isn't--confusion can result.  Your play experience with Pathfinder may vary.***