|
3 years ago ::
Nov 22, 2010 - 7:37PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
Maybe not as much, cause I did not buy MM3...
The solos in MM3 and especially in MV are just brutal. A level 20 well optimized party was completely and utterly dismantled by the MV Dracolich (which isn't a giant load of horrible like the original MM). They really have learned to give solos proper teeth now.
As for Pathfinder: I think it's pretty terrible as I didn't like 3.5 and stopped playing it. 3.5 was a terrible system and Pathfinder has pretty much inherited everything I hated about 3.5.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 22, 2010 - 7:40PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
|
2+ years and over $100 in monster products to buy to "get it right"....meh...
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 22, 2010 - 8:22PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2005
|
PEI, in the thriving metropolis of Charlottetown
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 22, 2010 - 8:31PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
|
Riiight...i actually think i have asked you that before....i am originally from Tha Rock...but out here on the Wet Coast now....
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 22, 2010 - 8:35PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2006
|
this got lost in the other thread: ok, can I ask (as I have few times in the last few years) if pathfinder is completly back compadable yet?
example: in 3.5 I played warlocks, and swordsages, and warblades alot at the end. Mostly becuse I found wiz, cleric, and druid over powered, and fighter and ranger under powered. Now I have seen wizards and clerics got better (becuse there is now a reason not to prestige class) however none of the non phb classes got the upgrade.
Now I the one pathfinder game I went to play I was told, in a game with a cleric, 2 wizards, and a multi classed fighter/wizard... I was told a warblade was out of the quastion too powerful (I really want to be looked in the eye and told that cleric wasn't just as powerful if not more so...)
so how does one use the huge set of 3.5 books, if they reprinted and and changed the classes. But each complete book introed 3 new classes that where not updated, and the incarnum, psionic, and Bo9s also need some updateing...
so is it really backwards compadable.
is pathfinder it's own game, or is it 3.5?
the problem is there are still alot of 3.5 flaws still in pathfinder... and as such it kinda sucks as a stand alone, but it also is not really able to be used with the full set of books I own...inless I want to house rule every spell, class, and feat from other then PHB1.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 22, 2010 - 9:30PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
this got lost in the other thread:
ok, can I ask (as I have few times in the last few years) if pathfinder is completly back compadable yet?
example: in 3.5 I played warlocks, and swordsages, and warblades alot at the end. Mostly becuse I found wiz, cleric, and druid over powered, and fighter and ranger under powered. Now I have seen wizards and clerics got better (becuse there is now a reason not to prestige class) however none of the non phb classes got the upgrade.
Now I the one pathfinder game I went to play I was told, in a game with a cleric, 2 wizards, and a multi classed fighter/wizard... I was told a warblade was out of the quastion too powerful (I really want to be looked in the eye and told that cleric wasn't just as powerful if not more so...)
so how does one use the huge set of 3.5 books, if they reprinted and and changed the classes. But each complete book introed 3 new classes that where not updated, and the incarnum, psionic, and Bo9s also need some updateing...
so is it really backwards compadable.
is pathfinder it's own game, or is it 3.5?
the problem is there are still alot of 3.5 flaws still in pathfinder... and as such it kinda sucks as a stand alone, but it also is not really able to be used with the full set of books I own...inless I want to house rule every spell, class, and feat from other then PHB1.
It is to a point, Pazio made a conversion guide you can download for free here paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinder/pat...
basically follow that and you should be good, also make sure you avoid some of the "munchkin" pitfalls 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:12AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2010
|
There are a few bits I would like to add that I haven't seen mentioned yet.
In Pathfinder you are supposed to start at level 1 and then slowly advance. As such you slowly develop your character, add options, etc. It takes you a full Adventure Path and maybe a year of gaming to reach level 20 with a single character.
While you can (should ?) do the same in 4e it seems to me that many more players just jump in high level.
If you go up level by level, a lot of issues mentioned here just disappear. If you want to start with an optimized character high level, then it seems 4e has an edge.
This doesn't say one is better as the other - it's a matter of what lay style you prefer.
In regard to being compatible:
Pathfinder is close enough to look compatible - but there are enough changes that just dont work. An example was the +50 diplomancer in the other thread. That character has been broken completely in Pathfinder. If you did such a character, then you better stay with 3.5 Pathfinder just states that diplomacy doesn't work against an enemy who wants to kill you next. End of story. You can't use the character anymore and go eye to eye with a red dragon.
Is this good or bad?
If you spend a year generating such a character as a player you rightly will be upset. As a GM you probably say - finally common sense. Great. If as a player you just generated such a character high level to annoy the GM - well - not sure if you would be the right player at my table.
So is it backward compatible?
It is close enough to make it work. But I have to admit - my original idea was to carry on my games in Faerun - I have loads of background - nearly all the WotC books. But they have all gone one floor up two month ago to make space for Golarion books. So the answer is - if you want a simple live as GM, you are likely to buy stuff again and only the best modules you care to translate into Pathfinder.
It is very close as player - so a player who has played 3.5 will be able to participate directly. But again he will have to unlearn certain ways he has done games before.
The last bit - is it to difficult.
My seven year old has played a Druid - my nine year old has reached third level in Pathfinder Society Play and even played successful at a CON.
Sorry if this is mainly a view from 3.5/Pathfinder - my 4.e knowledge is too minimal to compare.
Thod
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:13AM
#28
|
|
|
2+ years and over $100 in monster products to buy to "get it right"....meh...
I do not think you can use that quote against 4e when PF/3rd has had how many years and how many books to even try to get it right?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2010 - 1:06AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2008
|
2+ years and over $100 in monster products to buy to "get it right"....meh...
I do not think you can use that quote against 4e when PF/3rd has had how many years and how many books to even try to get it right?
Well, we all know that's an unfair comparison because.... umm... well, you see..... One of them starts with 'P'.
On topic, I never really got into 3.5 so much, so my only time playing Pathfinder I was pretty.... miserable is the word that comes to mind.
It is not my intent to offend. However, it is also not my concern whether you get offended or not.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2010 - 3:07AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Apr 18, 2010
|
Hmm... Part of the problem with comparing the two, as I see it, is that so much depends on the players and the DM - particularly the DM. I've played both. I've only DM'd 4e. I have, on the whole enjoyed Pathfinder more (as a player) than 4e, but that has far more to do with being in a group where nobody acts like an idiot, and the DM knows what they're doing. [I have played 4e with good DMs, but very rarely with a good DM and non-idiot players.] Also I'm not a fan of tactical combat, so (the way our DM runs) Pathfinder suits me a lot more. [And when I run 4e, I don't use tactical combat either...] Would I like to try and DM Pathfinder? I don't know. I did consider DMing Slayers d20 for a while, and also BESM d20 too [I have an idea for an SD Gundam Sengoku campaign that would be fun. And would be even more fun if I had players who knew WTF I was talking about when I say 'SD Gundam'] I do enjoy DMing 4e though. [Well I would if I had players who didn't do things like not read character sheets and keep me hanging about...  ]
|
|
|
