One of the things that naturally comes about in a discussion of switching from D&D to another game system is Pathfinder. Because the community has embraced Pathfinder as a way for fans of 3rd Edition to continue playing their game while getting new product, there is this illusion that the whole world is in “D&D vs. Pathfinder” mode.
I think that perception may be a bit overblown. Let’s face it: most D&D players aren’t switching to Pathfinder (or anything else). They play D&D. That’s what they’ve always played, and unless it says “Dungeons and Dragons” on the cover, they’re not going to buy it.
On top of that, there are other choices. If you don’t like 4E, there are plenty of gaming systems out there. Pathfinder is one of the youngest, and it’s not the best-selling. Even without insider information, I guarantee that there are still more RIFTS players than Pathfinder players. That can, and probably will, change. But, my point is that it’s not a “D&D or Pathfinder” decision – it’s a “D&D or Non-D&D” decision.
So, why am I looking at another system instead of switching to Pathfinder? Several reasons.
Pathfinder isn’t yet a proven product
Here’s the fact: Pathfinder still sells less than most non-D&D RPGs, and it will for a long time. They’re only in Beta, and the full game isn’t due out for a year. Could the final product be better than 4E and wind up atop the market? Sure, it’s possible. But it’s not happening any time soon.
I’m not especially interested in playtesting someone’s game, and I’m certainly not interested in playtesting it for a year or more. Come talk to me when Pathfinder’s been in the game for a decade, and then we’ll talk about a long-term commitment. In the meantime, it’s a novelty worth exploring, but still a novelty.
Pathfinder isn’t D&D
Pathfinder is a fine product. It’s a good-looking game, from what I can tell. It’s certainly an offshoot of D&D. Most of the designers have professional experience designing D&D.
However, Pathfinder is not D&D.
What do I mean, exactly? I’m not writing esoterically. I simply mean this: Pathfinder is owned by Paizo. Paizo doesn’t hold the intellectual rights to Dungeons and Dragons. I’ve heard people say “4E is OK, but it’s not D&D.” They’re wrong. 4E, like it or not, is D&D. Pathfinder is not D&D.
If folks want to suggest that Pathfinder is somehow the “spiritual descendant” of D&D, that’s OK by me. But for me, the name on the box defines the product. Maybe I like the new D&D, maybe I don’t. No matter. It’s D&D.
For a long time, I’ve been a D&D player. If I’m going to switch to something else, I’m going to consider all possibilities, plain and simple. Pathfinder is one, Vampire is another.
You’ll carefully notice that I don’t hate Pathfinder or think Paizo is the devil. I hope the product does well alongside D&D. More good games make for a deeper industry, which means better product all around.
Pathfinder doesn’t solve any problems
I need a new set of rules. I’ve complained for a long time that I just can’t keep up with the sheer number of rules available for third edition. 4E solves that problem; so does Vampire. Heck, Toon: The RPG solves that problem. Pathfinder is the one product that doesn’t offer me a rules reset.
Add to that the fact that our gaming group has certain dynamics that center around D&D rules. That’s a nice way of saying I’ve got a couple of power gamers at my table. Power gaming is fine, but I’d like to see something new at the table. A rules reset is one way around that. For a while, at least, my power gamers will be on equal footing with one another (and with me as their GM).
What do you think? Are you going Pathfinder? If so, how do you see it?
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
To an extent, I agree. Purely for the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate though, I’m going to…. ummmm…… play Devil’s Advocate.
All in the goodly cause of furthering debate, of course
I think it’s narrow to say that people aren’t going to play Pathfinder because it’s not D&D. Lots of things aren’t D&D, and they still get played. I’m pretty sure the Warhammer crowd aren’t going to suddenly stop playing because they wake up one day and think “Wait a minute! This isn’t D&D!”.
- Pathfinder isn’t yet a proven product -
Neither is 4e D&D. In fact, you could argue that Pathfinder is MORE of a proven product than 4e because it’s intentionally built on proven mechanics and systems. 4e, on the other hand, has introduced a lot of new, unproven mechanics – and (in the case of Skill Challenges) already required a pretty major revision.
- Pathfinder isn’t D&D -
Neither is 4e D&D – if, by D&D you mean 3rd Edition D&D where the players begin relatively weak and advance in power while collecting magic items and the magic-users memorize their spells from lists.
Now I don’t buy that “4e isn’t D&D” nonsense either (it says it’s D&D right on the cover) but it might not be the kind of D&D some folks want to play. Pathfinder offers an alternative way to play D&D. Granted, it’s not got the words on the cover (and therefore may lack the selling power), but it’s also much more backwards compatible, which increases it’s selling power as compared to 4e. Swings and roundabouts, really.
- Pathfinder doesn’t solve any problems -
Yes and no. It’s still got a way to go when it comes to lessening the burden of the GM. That’s where 4e really shines. I reckon a DM’s prep work is halved (at least) under 4e compared to 3e. Pathfinder would struggle to beat that.
On the other hand, it ignores some of the spurious “problems” that were bandied about as issues during the 4e launch. In my game at least, “Save or die” effects weren’t viewed as a problem until 4e came along, and that’s something Pathfinder handles, imho, better than 4e.
Also, 4e brings it’s own problems – most notably it’s over-dependence of miniatures to play. This limits being able to play 4e either face-to-face, or over Wizards’ vapourware app that’s not going to even see the light of day until 2009 (if then, I suspect). Third party solutions are coming, but 4e is never going to be a game you can play over IRC, for example.
For virtual gamers, that’s a big loss, and a problem that doesn’t exist with Pathfinder. Ironic when 4e D&D is supposed to be the digital gamer’s friend.
Overall Pathfinder provides a great option if you like 3e and want to see it’s continued support. Sure, it’s not perfect – no game is – but it’s well worth a close look if you’re not a fan of the 4e playstyle.
greywulfs last blog post..Audrey Hepburn would make a kickass elf
Yeah, I’m not sure about all your points there, but the fact of the matter for my group was that if we didn’t like 4e, we were done playing D&D. (Pathfinder included.) There were just too many problems that we saw as core to the system in 3e to keep playing. Fortunately, all the groups I play with like it. But even in some alternate reality where we don’t like 4e, we wouldn’t go to Pathfinder since it’s built on the same things we don’t like.
By its not being D&D he means that its doesn’t have the Dungeons and Dragons TM on it therefore while Pathfinder is a new product, 4E is officially a D&D product by name only.
Pathfinder fixes alot of things that 3.5 got wrong. Does it fix it completely, nope, but then its still in progress. 4E throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Its a game… if you aren’t having fun, why play it. Thats what it really boils down to in the end.
Apis
***A rules reset is one way around that. For a while, at least, my power gamers will be on equal footing with one another (and with me as their GM).***
Just needed to comment on this portion. If you think for a second that if the certain people you are referring to take interest in 4E won’t study the rules like a college mid-term and bend them to their will you are kidding yourself.
We’ve seen it time and time again. It all depends on the mindset of the person. Two people will make two very different characters when presented with the same rule set.
Rules reset will fix everything is an illusion.
@ All –
Excellent comments. Truly, I appreciate the discussion.
The bottom line, for me, is that Pathfinder doesn’t fix my problem, and that 4E will, for a while. It’s not a panacea, but it is a band-aid.
I don’t think Pathfinder is a bad game. I hope I was clear on that…
I guess I’m too old, too, to get into the “D&D in name only” discussion. If I wanted to go that route, and be a D&D spiritual purist, I’d have gone Hackmaster when 3E came out.
More follow-up later!
@Bob. I look forward to it. Excellent discussion, all
greywulfs last blog post..So these Kobolds walk into a bar
@ Greywulf – The vast majority of D&D players are casual players. They don’t blog, they don’t go to Gen COn, and they don’t participate in discussion boards. Those are the folks that are only dimly aware, just now, that D&D has a 4th edition, and that likely have never heard of Pathfinder.
Those are the folks that aren’t going to play Pathfinder because it’s not D&D. They are the silent majority.
As to 4E being a proven product, WotC has proven itself over the long haul. Paizo has proven itself over the short run. That’s what I mean by a proven product: stability from the market perspective.
As to solving problems – my problems had little to do with specific mechanics and more to do with a group dynamic. Nothing Pathfinder can do, as long as it’s built on the 3E rules to start with, can fix that group mechanic.
@ G (and Greywulf, continued) Only a rules reset can change that group dynamic I’m talking about. And as I mentioned earlier, it can only do that for a while. It took 3E about 7 years to get to the place where I could no longer keep up with my players.
I’m OK investing in a new system if it does that for me. 7 years is usually 2 good campaigns for us.
“But for me, the name on the box defines the product.”
I really can’t buy that. A game is what it is. There is no reason to privilege the name over the producer, the ISBN, or the page count for that matter. If Hasbro swapped the names of two of its other games, say Scrabble and Yahtzee, that wouldn’t make Yahtzee Scrabble and Scrabble Yahtzee… it would just make them look like fools.
And that the problem WotC has now that they called their new game Dungeons & Dragons.
***I’d have gone Hackmaster when 3E came out.***
I have all the books and Little Keep on the Borderlands if you wanna give it a look =) THAC0 ftw.
Apis
@ Vin – You’re absolutely entitled to your opinion. But 4E is D&D – whether you or I like it. That’s my point; our analysis of the product is irrelevant to the product’s identity.
@ G – Waiting for you to run that one, my friend. I’ll play, though. Lucinian Silvermoon hasn’t seen the light of day in a decade
Thats because we killed him most horribly until DM fiat brought him back
lol
Ok I see a lot of points here.
4E I did not like this version of D&D, why because it offered very little in character development. Warhamer or warhammer 40K broken daow to a smaller scale would be exactley the same, albiet warhamer is more simple.
Pathfinder, after playing Pathfinder for a month now I realy enjoy the game as they give a diverse background to the world your in with plots and adventure and the option that keeps power gamers on equal footing.
I cannot get enough of Pathfinder, when I picked up 4E played it for 2 months I was bored, and a lot of players in my group were as well, since WOTCF pulled the OGL on 3.5 we went on a quest to discover a new game and we did. Pathfinder it brings back all the things we wanted in our games character development.
If you like 4E thats fine but as for our group and our community group we shelved 4E and took up Pathfinder.
Maybe in 4 years WOTC will bring out another system with D&D on the bax and we may give that a go. but until then Pathfinder has our blessing
Despite the article and conversation being months old, I stumbled across it and wanted to add my thoughts.
I think your first point is very wrong. First off, Pathfinder, the RPG, isn’t selling at all yet as it’s not even properly publish yet. Talking about sales is silly.
Even more silly is suggesting that D&D 4e has decades of proven game design. As others have pointed out, D&D 4e is arguably more revolutionary than Pathfinder, which incrementally builds on 3 & 3.5, which have only been around for a decade or so.
For me, it’s a matter of not wanting to support WotC after (1) they dropped the OGL, (2) fired many of the 3e edition designers and (3) their recently behavior with pulling all PDF sales. I simply don’t want to give any more money to them after the way I feel I have been treated. As a DM, that means I’m not going to spend money on 4e books and I’ll look elsewhere, likely to Paizo.
@Aaron – My first point is that Pathfinder isn’t yet a proven product. I make the same point you did about it not being published yet. The fact that it’s not published supports my argument that it’s not yet proven!
D&D, as a product, does have decades of proven game design. You can’t argue with that fact. Publication dates alone tell you that. Doesn’t guarantee that any developments are good ones, only that they build on previous successes.
Look. I’m not a designer. The OGL, while novel and a good part of what made 3E so revolutionary, isn’t something I really care about.
I also don’t, on a personal level, know the designers that were fired. I do know that some of the ones I really like are still there. It’s not like they fired my best friend, or even my favorite designer.
As far as PDF sales – you’ve got me there. D&D has been behind the curve when it comes to technology. It was true during the TSR days and it’s true today.
Look. I actually really hope Pathfinder does well. Competition in the marketplace forces stronger products from the frontrunner. But you can’t argue the three points in this post:
Saying all of this doesn’t make me a shill or anything like that. The fact of the matter is that, for me, 4E breathed a whole new life into a game that had, sadly, played itself out.
Pathfinder is fine for whoever likes it. I don’t even think it’s a bad game. It is not D&D and, probably most importantly, just doesn’t do anything for me.
So, midway through a Campaign, we Dropped the 4e rules cause they suck. We are in the middle of reverting to 3e.
I am only posting this cause you are wrong. 4e is not Dnd…. 4e is mordheim or WFB with a DM. It isn’t a role playing game, it is a role playing game with too many stupid rules to make it fit into the MMO (ie. take a bit of the WoW ground swell marketing) genre.
I mean hell, class roles are defined as their combat roles… not their actual roles.
Pathfinder is Dnd, I don’t care is Hasbro owns the rights to the name Dnd… I am not playing Hasbro’s Childrens game they call 4e. It sucks!
If you buy a puppy, name it Kitty and call it a cat, is it a cat? According to you it would be. So enjoy playing your childish kids game Muhahahaha!!!
(The anger and hate in this comment is not intented to attack you personally, just your misguided opinions)
@Tony -
Thank you, partly, for illustrating a point for me.
The argument over 4E, even a year after release, tends to be an emotional one for some folks. You’re angry and hateful, by your own admission.
You’re so angry and hateful that you failed to provide any sort of reason why you don’t like 4E, other than “class roles are defined as their combat roles… not their actual roles.”
Oh, and that “it sucks.”
I personally don’t care if you don’t like 4E anymore than I care if you don’t like my favorite sports team. And, if you want to have a real debate on the topic, let’s do that.
If you want to whine and bitch, go somewhere else.
“I also don’t, on a personal level, know the designers that were fired. I do know that some of the ones I really like are still there. It’s not like they fired my best friend, or even my favorite designer.”
Such apathetic cruelty won’t win you friends among players who remain loyal to those who MADE Dungeons & Dragons what it is, was rather. Try empathising. Try humanity and maturity.
@M – 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?”
That’s like saying, “I’ll never by a Ford because Some guy who helped design the 2009 Mustang got laid off.”
Sucks for the guy who got laid off. Absolutely. I feel for anyone in that position. I live in Michigan, which has been hit harder than any other state by this current economic downturn, and I know lots of folks who’ve lost their jobs. And I feel for them. I’ve also helped them, financially and in other ways.
But feeling bad for someone who lost their job doesn’t affect how I “feel” about a company, a product or a game.
It wasn’t as if “4th Edition D&D” were some powerful force in control of WotC, and that this malicious entity fired people. Resenting 4th Edition doesn’t help those people that got laid off.
At the same time, I’m not going to buy Pathfinder (or another product) in order to help someone who was laid off. I think that’s what you’re getting at with this talk of “loyalty.”
“Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook Sold Out!
All Preordered Copies Now in Distribution Channel, New Print Run to Arrive in Early November
Ten days before the launch of their much-anticipated Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Paizo Publishing today announced that the first print run of the book has sold out, with all preordered copies on their way to stores for an August 13 release.”
That said, I like 4e. I also like Pathfinder. Then again if it were up to me I’d still be playing 2nd edition.
Apis
See, and I’m happy for Paizo!
Competition helps make the whole industry better. Just because I personally don’t have a reason to run Pathfinder doesn’t mean I wish them ill, or think anyone who does play Pathfinder is evil or whatever.
I like what Apis says here – you can tell that there’s no bizarre emotional attachment (or hatred) for D&D or Pathfinder or any other system.
This post is almost a year old, and I’m amazed that people like “M” still get angry and offended about the topic…
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.
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.
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.
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
Pathfinder is outselling D&D 4E on Amazon by 10 to 1… I think it’s time to update your projections
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
A different version of dnd. The same argument as last time….
2nd edition and 3rd edition fanatics were fighting like hell back in the days when 3rd edition was new. Same thing happening now with 3rd edition and 4th edition.
Pathfinder is quite similar to 3rd edition, only alot easier and you are munched up quite a bit. The monster CR is higher that it should be, and its easier to fill your bags with treasures and fantastic 3rd edition items that have been copy/pasted from the DM guide
4th edition is quite the opposite. Here you can die in combat! The skills are different and it has a MMO feeling to it. Here you want the healer to heal and the tank to tank. (no more half-Dwarf Fighter/mage/cleric build that only worked out of combat)
Then again… Pathfinder has more skills (if i remember my 4th edition correctly) and seems too be built for roleplaying more than rollplaying. It’s easier rules if you played 3rd edition. It’s very easy to munchkin, and the only thing that can kill you is sleepspells and coup de grace. Dragons have been nerfed quite a bit and other monsters have gotten 2 more AC. Caracters have better stats, even more feats, and xclass skills are no longer a problem.
So for those who likes to play a paladin with use magic device, its probably possible to do so. (you will have 3 points less than the rogue).
Both systems has their good and bad things, but personally I’d rather play Grimm or Bunnies and Burrows instead of a MMOcombatstyle RPG, or an easier version of Munchkin D20.
(When i ran the starter adventure in the 4ed book my party died in the first fight. 2nd time they tried it they died on the dragon)
When i play pathfinder I’ve noticed that as long as you have a cleric you can fight everything on your CR +2-4 without any problems, and if you have a paladin you can take out pitfiends on lvl 12. (Combat will take about 2-6 turns. remember to get quickened spellfor massive munchkinism!!!
In bunnies and burrows you can count 1, 2, 3 lots and lots lots.
I’ve been playing D&D since third edition,and honestly…. I gave 4e about six months of bi-weekly playing. It filled the gap, but as a lvl 30 eladrin wizard, I decided to screw my party. In the middle of the battle with Orcus Iused telepathy to make a deal with the demon prince… I proceeded to easily kill every member of my party. Then, the Barbarian came back to life using an ability that let him be revived at full hp using a healing surge. he proceeded to do this until he only had 1 (out of 30 or so!) left,at which point he decided to kill the object of my betrayal… so, after blowing amagical horn that summoned our cleric from th grave, he got him to cast a low-level spell, allowing an auto-crit… so, after the barb one-shots the most powerful monster in the game, every player realizes that 4e is nothing more than masturbation. your basically a god from the beginning, and at the end you realize gods are pussies. We are now all loyal PF players, and reminisce about 4e the same way you would about that time you got drunk and slept with the handicapped girl.
I just think that 4e forces you to play a nerfed version of Pun-Pun the kobold…
honestly, I view 4e as a dnd combat simulator… i once used the monks daily ‘spinning lepeard manuever to kill 15 nobles seated at along table in one round
I stumbled across this and decided to research it out a bit.
According to the following article, 4e and Pathfinder are both doing quite well in sales, and as Martha Stuart once said, “That’s a good thing.”
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/18504.html
Unfortunately, and probably due to the hefty weight of fanfare that many of the authors of 3.x brought to Pathfinder (not to mention the WoTC axe of the OGL), it seems that 3rd party support for 4e is much thinner than PF and the number of projected D&D books to be made in the near future is rather dismal.
If compared to the second year or so of 3.0, 4e may be a dud, but! BUT! This is an entirely different marketplace for tabletop gaming, with gobs and gobs of smaller producers each making or contributing to content that is and is not at all like D&D…
As for my own group, we’ve played both. We like PF better.
4e has a lot of good things that make it unique in the succession of D&D as an evolving game along with the awkward 2nd edition-like additions that seem to make it more cumbersome even with minis. There is also a certain lack of depth in the 4e ruleset that seems to require players to roleplay in order to make the game interesting, which is fine if you have a bunch of character-driven players. Granted, my friends are not always so driven, but the fact that even god-like characters can only ever do 1 of a dozen or so meaningful things at any given time in combat is probably what drew us to Pathfinder (and subsequently back to all our 3.x stuff as well).
Just checking the bestselling list of RPG gaming books en amazon.com and i found the core rulebook of pathfinder is #1, but 10 of the 20 most selling books of RPG gaming are D&D 4th Ed. and only 5 products of Pathfinder are in that list, instead of that, the corerulebook at #1 considering it’s a not a new book already it’s a great merit , Call it a tie?
PS- Personally i prefer Pathfinder for the reasons already well exposed for others.
Nicholas April 7, 2010 at 10:57 am
yes I know I am late to the thread but I do have something to contribute. I wanted to respond to Nicholas’s comment on tactics in 4e. I am sorry i simply haven’t found any. After playing three adventures in 4e. The experience for me was less than exciting, every battle was the same! The same abilities used over and over, and there where moments of cinematic brilliance but this was in spite of the rules and came down to the party who had years of experience playing the game.There was no strategy, there is no option to withdraw and reconfigure spells for the encounter? i.e hide from undead, create water etc… it was simply let’s go back in there and try and slog it out until we don’t die..
It simply wasn’t the game I have been playing for years (not the rules etc) it just doesn’t feel the same. I gave it a good try but pathfinder ticks all the boxes it’s for grown-ups, 4e seems to be aimed at a younger market or trying to bring new players in from video games.
Well as long as it brings more people to the table; and everyone is welcome. If you see us at a con; bring your dice and we’ll give you a pregen.
Cheers Guys! thanks for the op to posta Bob
@Talisman
I think you misread my distinction between Tactics and Strategy.
3.x games were strategic. Choosing a spell list specifically for an encounter, having a stock of potions and scrolls, and the ability to withdraw, re-tool, and re-engage an encounter are Strategic elements and 4E is indeed lacking in those areas.
Tactics however refers to the use of what you have on hand, now, and to use it with as much synergy as possible.
4E has tactical elements galore. For example, Leader characters giving bonuses to other characters, or the ability to grant out of turn movement or attacks which play to positional strengths.
The fact that characters have defined roles is an element of tactical play. Leaders are force multipliers. Strikers do the damage, Defenders control monster attacks, Controllers weaken enemies and control the field.
Those are all tactical elements.
You don’t have to like it, it is fine either way.
Again, I state the nature of Strategic Play vs Tactical Adventure can be summed up by making a comparison to movies. A Fantasy movie is going to be much more 4E than 3E. When Conan or King Arthur or whoever your protagonist is gets in a battle – they fight with what they have and win through derring do.
They do not withdraw, discuss the math, and come back with a gallon of potions, 47 scrolls, and spell lists designed to cut through the enemy in 3 seconds.
I’d like to just say that – don’t get me wrong, I currently own Pathfinder and am planning to sell it for D&D 4th – That WotC does a MUCH better job of public organization of events. They have “Encounters” now, where you can go for free and learn how to play and have a good time and gain new friends and go there once every so often for a game or two. Not only this but I see 4th edition being played much more in my local hobby shops. Posters on the front door of the store telling us of D&D game night…but there is no Pathfinder…? Where is it’s events and cool free stuff? I think Pathfinder was a tad odd…they tried to fix things that were in a fixed version of a game to start with (Even though there were still issues).
Dungeons and Dragons came in that cheap red box that had the awesome starter’s stuff…I remember seeing one being opened and being so excited to see it be played for the first time. D&D has been around longer…though I do think TSR had done more good for it than WotC has, they are trying to lure MMORPG players into their tabletop game, is it working? I suppose to a tad of a degree.
Pathfinder beats D&D with much more possibilities and options and things like storytelling.
D&D has shorter battles and prep time and is much less confusing that many other games. However…what were they thinking…going down the whole ritual thing…that was something the game could’ve done without.
@Sev – Regarding Rituals… While I can agree that was a weird change that maybe wasn’t the greatest overall, it was necessary for their design goal.
They designed the system around Combat Encounters. They wanted to make it so that you would NOT have Strategic and Tactical decisions at odds. So for example, a Wizard should (under the 4E Paradigm) never have to choose between Knock and Web, or Comprehend Languages and Magic Missile.
So they moved everything magic that wasn’t for Combat into a new classification.
Well I guess by now pathfinder is a proven product and outselling 4E. So more people switched to pathfinder than to 4E because pathfinder did a better job of capturing the essense of dungeons and dragons.
i was a bit underwhelmed at 4e but it is its own kind of game i guess…
its not the kind of old school game style i was used to with 3e and pathfinder, more like a “flying around shooting beams of godly light from your face” feeling. all in good fun of course. ^^
that said pathfinder has that familiar “old school” gameplay feeling from 3e. guess its more of a familiarity thing with the game mechanic. i find pathfinder more simple to play. not rules wise, but gameplay wise.
both games have their kinks/rough spots, but what i might not like about 4e someone else might love! both games will have rules you hate and others you love. same with pathfinder. same with any game.
either way its still just a game. rule of thumb: if you dont have fun. dont play.
P.S. sales are sales, they dont sway my gameplay in the slightest.
-player 1
I’ll right away take hold of your rss as I can not find your e-mail subscription link or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please allow me know so that I could subscribe. Thanks.
affiliate marketing´s last [type] ..1
i’m sorry to say this, but i hated 4′th ed from the moment I laid eyes apon it and my dislike for it just grew the more i got to know it.
personally for me 4′th ed is D&D copying mmo’s.
that’s good for some people that actually like no Challenge at all, other than ofc using the encounter abilities and whatever you have as your expectedt to…
you get your role as a healer tank controller or dps. much like any mmorpg and then play it, and that’s all you do. No more awesome i can actually do stuff in this ”world” by using spells abillities and planning an infiltration building a castle defending one or simply assaulting an organisation (evil or not) while being well prepared.
and sorry to ask but is not using gallons of potions and scrolls a good thing? tell me if you were in war and attacked an outpost is bringing tanks and bombers and all that a bad thing instead of fx. just sending soldiers to deal with that by using their apparent awesomeness that’s going to bring them death? Wouldn’t you plan not to hit those soldiers with napalm or other bombs, wouldn’t you cast a grenade in an attempt to take down a group of enemies?
if so then why do you rather want a hero not getting these things to boost their chances of survival? Isn’t that just pure greed to get an item that you can use forever…
personally i’m playing as a gm and my players would die quickly if they never used a potion or scroll, and in the end it’s a part of their resources they are using it’s limited they won’t appear with gallons of potions but pairs of them the same for scrolls.
now for me pathfinder is the real new D&D I just wanted to say that, so for all those who like 4′th ed good for you, but for me that’s not role playing.
And please don’t get to offended, of course I made it a bit too black and white it’s not like i’m saying 4th ed is wow.
@Eric – Everyone has their opinion, so you won’t get any angry responses here
However, to answer your question, I do not like the “scrolls and potions” abuse (in my opinion) because it seems forced and silly. I am sort of a low/mid magic fan. The idea of groups (over)using large numbers of scrolls and potions rankles my sensibilities.
When you watch a Sword and Sorcery movie, are the heroes lugging around a library of scrolls and two cases of potions? No. In my mind, 4E is closer to “cinematic action.” Older editions/Pathfinder are more simulations that are fun as well, but you’d never see in a dramatic depiction.
As for “No more awesome i can actually do stuff in this ”world” by using spells abillities and planning an infiltration building a castle defending one or simply assaulting an organisation (evil or not) while being well prepared” you can actually do that in 4E just as well as you can in any other edition. Roleplay isn’t hampered by 4E nor is ingenuity. It is just done differently.
yeah I see your point, and i know I overdid it last post. but then again much of it is really depending on what people like, personally i just don’t see the systems working aswell as I want them to in 4th ed. And I guess I don’t really see the potion/scroll abuse here we aren’t talking about using more than max 1/4 of your wealth on potions and consumables, if people are buying 50 cure moderate wound potions it should be late game where it only really is usable outside of combat. But those People buying 2 potions and a few scrolls are just well prepared and backed up, and that’s just cool.
Also comparing it to fantasy movies where the setting isn’t just low but ultra low magic is a bit over the top.
To tell you the truth I would be interested in hearing as why you think potions and scrolls are an abuse and seems forced so that i can think about it myself?
and thx for a quick and calm response btw (my own was a bit over the top)
There is nothing wrong with a few potions or scrolls. I am talking about the egregious cases where a PC has 50 potions, 40 scrolls, and 25 wands. Yes, you can say it is the DMs fault for allowing it, but the basic framework of the game does support it.
Clearly (to me at least) the 4E design team specifically addressed this type of behavior through the use of metagame controls, such as Healing Surges and Magic Item use rules. Although the Magic Item use rules have already been heavily changed from the initial release since they were widely unpopular, allowing for more variety and usefulness of magic items.
Again, I am not Anti-Pathfinder, but for me a lot of the reasons why I walked away from 3.5 were answered by 4E. The great imbalances between casters and melee as you moved through the levels, the “sweet spot” in leveling, etc. These may not be problems for you at all.
That is not to say I hold 4E as perfect. The move from a strategy to tactics based game has also made it more miniatures dependent than I like, but still find acceptable. The (further) abstraction of certain rules (because even old editions abstracted concepts like HP) has muddied a few things as well.
Hmm… I guess we think differently of the useables area. but actually that’s not the reason i’m playing pathfinder instead of 4E just wanted to mention it I hate the new encounter system that’s why… it just doesn’t sit right with me, I liked the old spell caster system with spells per day just as I liked the Fighters relying on feats….
but i guess that’s just me.
Yeah, it really is personal preference. Pathfinder follows the more traditional path, and 4E uses what I consider the “movie action” path.
And again, everyone plays the game differently, some can play (what I would consider) an awesome game of 3.5 and others play what I would consider a tad cheesy. The Encounter system was clearly an answer to the “5 minute workday” phenomenon, where you have a huge encounter (that takes 5 minutes of “real time”) and then having blown your spells per day, rest 8 hours, and take on the next encounter.
4E tried to make a system that encouraged and rewarded taking as many encounters in a row as possible. Was it perfect? No. There are certainly many flaws (although 4E has already heavily edited itself with errata. 4E today is as different from when it released as 3.5 was from 3E). But it was an interesting and novel approach to the 5 Minute Workday problem.
My main issue with Spells vs Feats is that the classes are still heavily imbalanced in favor of Spell classes.