d20radio.com

As you may know from the latest Game On!, I've been considering picking up the Pathfinder RPG and have been dinking around in D&D 4e. Most of recent RPG experience has been in 3.0/3.5 however.

Now, not wishing to start a flame war or anything (although folks here are generally pretty cool about stuff) I have yet to hear a really in-depth conversation on either of the Pathfinder dedicated Podcasts (Hi RCjr.) about just how Pathfinder is different from 3.5 and / or 4e. I know there are a lot of articles around the net written by erstwhile supporters of each, but honestly I find most of them to be less than useful when it comes to determining the impact of changes on game play from both a GM and Player perspective. Is it going to enhance my play experience or is it just going to burden it with yet another rules set that makes minor changes that are largely insignificant?

I'm not a fan of 4e for a multitude of reasons, but I would be equally interested in hearing why Pathfinder is or isn't better than 4e.

I get the whole 'Pathfinder is 3.5 refined' deal, but why should I, new system interested gamer that I am, choose Pathfinder over 4e or even over just sticking with the 3.5 stuff that I have? Is there something beyond the very nice art that I should be looking at when making this decision? What would 'sell' Pathfinder to me? What should be making me WANT Pathfinder over other choices? Is it the Holy Grail of RPG gaming or just another dixie cup?

So, can you cover that on your show? (And it would be interesting to hear it from Know Direction, too. So I'm heading there next.)

-Cheers

_________________
Editor and Writer at The GSA, writing about all sorts of games from YOU, the Gamer Nation.
Purveyor of Skill Monkey Segments for the NEW Order 66.
I write Do Not Pass Go for EN World

Same here. I am a supporter of Pathfinder as the best of the fantasy-based d20 products on the market for a number of reasons... which I would get into if I weren't on break at work right now. I'll see what I can get together this evening and give a breakdown of why I prefer it.

That said, I'd also like to hear it covered on Chronicles.

_________________
Jedi Master Tir-Jin Meteos, The Order of 66
PC GAMER - T.J. Hafer

We can address this on the podcast, sure.

The short strokes of Pathfinder Core vs. 3.5 come down to a lot of small changes and a few significant ones as follows:

No "dead" levels: Every time a character levels, they get either a new classa ability or a new feat (or both). In 3.5, there were sometimes "dead" levels where the only thing that happened on leveling was an increase in BAB or caster level. That no longer happens in Pathfinder.

Skills consolidated - and more skill points to boot: A number of skills were consolidated in Pathfinder (Search, Spot, Listen rolled into "Perception" - and some other skills were effectively consolidated. This means your character can do more with their skills.

Skill Points expanded: The whole skill point purchase system was revised and simplified, so that most characters have more skill points now.

Grapple/Disarm/Bull Rush Overrun Simplified: These combat options (most expecially grapple) have been simplified into one neat elegant mechanic which uses the Combat Manuever Bonus value for the character (CMB) vs the Combat Manuever Defense (CMD). Those values, some sutuational modifiers and a D20 and you resolve the combat maneuver. This unified mechanic goes a long way to simplifying the resolution of these special attacks at the table.

While there are no healing surges in Pathfinder as there are in 4E, there is a new "Channeling of Positive Energy by clerics and Paladins that can heal a whole group of characters within 30 feet of the caster, usable multiple times a day. (Note: As well, the Paladin in Pathfinder is a far more powerful class than it ever was in 3.5. Paladins are The Schizznit in Pathfinder, imo. Easily my favorite class so far in the core rules. I am no familair enough with the APG yet to comment -- but we'll get there!)

There are a multiplicity of smaller changes, spells and to item crafting and a number of changes to the abilities of certain classes, but these are the highlights of the overall large changes to the D20 system in the Core Rule Book. The Advanced Player's Guide adds a lot more classes and spell, as well as some other changes -- but as far as the Core changes, the above are the highlights. The Game Mastery Guide presents some new options as well.

The biggest "bonus" to changing from 3.5 to Pathfinder is the ability to play and use a game that is thoroughly supported and available to all players. (The 600+ page pdf of the core rules is only $9.99) Between the hardcovers, monthly Campaign Setting and Player's Companion releases, Monthly Adventure Paths and Society Scenarios, card decks, flip mats, map packs and of course stand alone modules? In all honesty - there is WAY more to buy every month for Pathfinder than there is for 4E. It's not even close, imo.

There are some elements to 4E that Pathfinder does not have which I sort of miss. 4E play is more tactical in terms of movement and control on the battlefield and there are more options for movement and control on the battlemap. Some people prefer a simple tactical combat - but I prefer the added depth that Star Wars: SE and 4E bring to the game in that regard. Still, on balance, I think Pathfinder is a superior game. It is certianly better supported than 4E is, even after DDI is taken into account.

Putiting aside crunch and looking instead to fluff - I think the Golarion world setting and the flavor of Paizo's writers is unmatched. Paizo's core business is writing adventures and they do it better than anyone else. That was true in 3.5 days and it remains true now. Paizo has been doing it better than anyone else for the past eight years and it shows in the depth and quality of the Adventure product lines, imo.

_________________
.Robert

I'm not exactly unbiased, but I could give you a mix of actual commentary and scathing criticism.

I'm a 4e supporter (mechanically, I don't like any edition of D&D, but 4e is the best.)

4th edition treats the game as what it is - a way to have fun with your friends killing monsters, getting loot, and so on. You can do other things with it, but it's not as mutable as some kind of amorphous d20 product.

It's very tactical, which means that you're going to be carefully measuring movement of squares, tracking conditions, and so on. The squares and such are heavily implied with Pathfinder/3rd, but with 4e you outright need to use a grid and some kind of minis. However, it's loads easier for the players and the DM to look something up than in third edition or Pathfinder, particularly with monsters and during combat. There's lots of "uh, I forget what this power does," but this is really just replacing the same thing in 3rd/Pathfinder, which is "uh, I forget what this spell-like ability does." It's also easier for the DM to prepare a session with 4e, because everything is precisely balanced and monsters are not constructed like player characters.

With 3rd/Pathfinder, the "fluff" and the "crunch" are almost fully integrated. They try to simulate a fantasy world and make no bones about making the Fighter an awful class to play and making Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other casters into gods. Some people are okay with that kind of thing, but for most, it's obnoxious. The simulation aspect makes the system somewhat clunky, but it feels more "real" than 4e. Just be sure that your players are fine with taking a break from real life to play a fake version of real life. Particularly with the skill rank system, it's unrealistic anyway.

With 4th edition, the fluff can be whatever you want, so long as the crunch stays mostly the same. The classes are all completely balanced with each other with precise math, so that no one player gets ahead unless they deliberately use a broken build or someone gimps their character. You can "reskin" stuff as anything you want, which is really exciting. You can reskin a Fighter with a sword as a sentient bear with huge claws. You can reskin a Wizard as an alchemist tossing bottles of chemicals left and right. 4th edition is unapologetic about being unrealistic. It's close to an action movie in its tone. Basically, your Constitution score is how close to John McClane you are. It requires some degree of metagaming for the 4e DM to get into the game - you have to think more about who's having fun than who's believing in the setting.

I admit that the default fluff of Pathfinder is loads better than 4e, but this is super irrelevant to me because of the aforementioned ability of the DM to do whatever they want. You could rip Pathfinder's setting wholesale, then paste it in 4e and you would have very little problems.

Just to get in a few more digs against Pathfinder, it only fixes some of the problems of 3.5, and barely at that. Some of the problems are exacerbated. Casters are now more powerful and have even more options, not less, even though they're way, way above noncasters in terms of how much they can contribute. If you've got a 3.5 game going, I really wouldn't switch it over unless you really want grappling/bull rush etc. to be slightly simplified. It's not completely compatible with 3rd edition products either, as advertised.

_________________
If you're having hull problems, I feel bad for you son. I've got 99 problems, and a breach aint one.

And from the Pathfinder side:

I don't have a huge problem with 4th Edition (I had a huge problem with what was done to the Forgotten Realms, but that's another story), however, I much prefer Pathfinder. 4th Edition is a fun game that's biggest flaw, for me, is that it reminds me that its a game all of the time. If I'm playing in a really light role playing group, or if I have a really, really good DM, that's fine, but for an average campaign, there is too much in the rules that reminds me that there are rules there.

Ironically, some of the least satisfying stuff in 4E has to do with when they actually attempt fluff, because it almost never quite lines up with what the rules model. Its almost too efficient in being what it is.

One of the things that I like about Pathfinder is that you can do certain things in the rules that are quirky and have more to do with the roleplaying side of things. They can be broken, but generally, they can be broken when someone is using the rules to play a game, especially a competitive game, rather than a cooperative story telling game. If the rules need to be balanced so that no one can break them as a game, perhaps you should find people that are more along your way of thinking when it comes to a long term campaign.

Pathfinder isn't perfect, but no game is ever going to be perfect. Also, while you can port the setting elsewhere, a lot of the class features and spells and the way the world works is predicated on how Pathfinder works. You can work around it, but is it really worth it? If you really love 4E, probably, but if you aren't that married to either system and the setting sounds cool, why not use it with the rules its designed to work with.

As far as backwards compatibility, which is what Pathfinder claims, not complete compatibility, Paizo has said that what they mean by this is that you can pick up an adventure and pretty much run it as is and rules wise, it won't crash and burn. Yes, some PrCs don't work, and there are some options that replace 3.5 options in Pathfinder that don't work the same way. That doesn't mean that you can't play through, say, Red Hand of Doom in 3.5 using Pathfinder.

Finally, I am growing more and more enamored of just using Pathfinder with no 3.5 material at all. I've allowed 3.5 material in the game if I OK them, and its worked pretty well. But the more Pathfinder specific material comes out, the more it feels like its suppose to work together. Again, this doesn't mean that every class is perfectly balanced or that everyone will universally like them, but I have to say that from time to time a new class in a 3.5 book or a PrC just really fit, but if on the surface it seemed like it should have.

The other thing to keep in mind is that while D&D and Pathfinder have the same roots, Pathfinder leans much more heavily on the pulp side of things. High fantasy has had some influence, but Pathfinder really has more in common with Conan and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser than with Aragorn or Frodo.

_________________
"The things that we love tell us what we are."--Saint Thomas Aquinas

Such as? I hear this argument a lot, used against 4e, since it focuses so much on combat. But which areas, exactly, make 3rd/Pathfinder any better at "roleplaying" than 4e?



You're right that a good group can have fun with any system, but it helps a lot to have a good system to start with.

_________________
If you're having hull problems, I feel bad for you son. I've got 99 problems, and a breach aint one.

4th edition is not better than Pathfinder.

Pathfinder is not better than 4th edition.

I was giving my opinions, based on my experience and the experience of my gaming group, about why I prefer Pathfinder. In the end, a lot of this is subjective, and honestly, upon stating my case, I'm not really interested in proving that one system or another is demonstrably better than the other. It just doesn't work.

_________________
"The things that we love tell us what we are."--Saint Thomas Aquinas

Okay. To each his own. It might help people trying to decide between the two if the issues with each system are brought up, though.

_________________
If you're having hull problems, I feel bad for you son. I've got 99 problems, and a breach aint one.

I am currently playing in both a weekly Pathfinder game and a 4e game. However my favorite of the two is Pathfinder. The reason I lean that way is that I feel PF gives me more option for individualizing my character. Being the typical "actor" PC archetype I tend to obsess over colour in my characters rather than crunch.

In 4e what I find is that, as many have said, the focus becomes tactical and as such I find meself having to go over details of me next move very carefully since I have powers (I play a Shaman) that move PC 1 squares, Give a bonus to another and debuff an enemy. So all my powers have all these ancillary effects which means there is a lot to consider with each move! Notso much in PF as my attack, spell or ability does X and thats it. In 4e my power does XYZ leading to much more involved and dare I say loooooooooooonger battles with tons of metagaming to sort it all out.

That being said, there are brilliant things about 4e such as the diversity of classes, skills challenges, rules for minions which adds a great deal to the hobby.

All in all both games are very playable, and if one has a talented GM and passionate players your going to enjoy both.

_________________
Men Smell Funny!!!

I would add that there is nothing which makes either minions or Skill Challenges unique to 4E. Earlier this year, (indeed, a few months before Star Wars:SE went out of print) Rodney Thompson formally added Skill Challenges onto the Star Wars: SE system in Galaxy of Intrigue. The same essential rules Rodney used to create Star Wars:SE's Skill Challenge variant of the Skil Challenge system lies at the heart of The Gneech's homebrew Skill Challenge table for Pathfinder.

Minion rules are easy to bolt on to stock PF without any concern. Just do it. BOOM = Done.

Skill Challenges are also easy to implement. See The Gneech's "Page 42 For Pathfinder" here http://gneech.com/rpg/page-42-for-pathfinder-revisited/

A lengthy discussion on Skill Challenges in Pathfinder RPG is here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfinder ... inder.html

Frankly, good skill challenges are a great addition to any Pathfinder game session. BAD Skill Challenges are something we can all be enthusiastically happy about NOT being present in the PFRPG system. I'm rather proactive about this and I have a particular opinion about what makes a skill challenge "good" or "bad" that a lot of 4E and Star Wars: SE GMs might not agree with. Whenever the "skill challenge" has devolved into a round robin justification on how you should roll your highest skill? That's a skill challenge nobody needs. My general approach to Skill Challenges is this: Generally speaking, the more abstract the skill challenge, the cheesier it becomes as a means of resolving a conundrum in game.

Skill Challenges work best when they intereact with standard adventure mechanics: research and investigation of people, places and legends; dungeon crawl exploration (YES, really), influencing combat results before, during, and AFTER combat, too. Skill Challenges aren't new to RPGs. They've been around since the late 70s. What was new in 4E's take on them was a formal way to award XP for them and to integrate then into the game a little more clearly. That's a good idea and overall, an easy mechanic on how to do it. I would urge all Pathfinder GMs to use them -- But THINK about what you are doing, first.

Sadly, Mike Mearls had a series of excellent columns on the Skill Challenge mechanic in DDI which should be required reading. Given that is is DDI, few PFRGPS GMs are going to have access to it. That's a damn shame. Those articles are well worth reading. After several years of screwing around with Skill Challenges and getting a near critical hit (which was never confirmed), the DDI colums in the late spring of this year finally nailed it.

_________________
.Robert

I'd also add as a nice addition from 4e is the new races. Lets face it, fantasy games have grown a bit stale with the standard gnomes, elves, dwarves and halflings. 4e has given us some interesting new races to tinker and toy with that are not so steeped in fantasy lore an tradition that they become almost stifled by their stereotypical expectations. So having the new races, many of which are hold overs from 3.x, is a breath of fresh air in my opinion. In fact so much so that I really wish PF would hop in and give us some new races.

_________________
Men Smell Funny!!!

This is clearly a matter of taste. For me, the presence of tieflings, eladrins, dragonborn and warforged and all the rest of those twinked out races totally turned me off the fluff of 4E.

I'm an older gamer and my tastes run to the standard "high fantasy" races - but most especially and preferably plain old 100% human.

GET OFF MY LAWN!! /shakes fist

_________________
.Robert

I think the whole argument that "the fluff of 4e turned me off" is really bunk, because there is literally no reason why you can't, as a GM, just say Tolkein races only or pick whatever setting you want. Also keep in mind that they're supposed to be fun. If a player wants to have fun being a dragon, or a robot, or a half plant half goat, then why not?

_________________
If you're having hull problems, I feel bad for you son. I've got 99 problems, and a breach aint one.

LOL can I get the stats on that Half-Goat, Half-Plant and can it wear chainmail bikinis???

But I can understand while some folks would be turned off to the races. After all many of them are not that easy to crowbar into an established game world, I mean hell/dragon folks around??? Must be some well randy demons and dragons out there. However for me its more options many of whom the history and bulk of literature isnt weighing down upon.

Yet even still... no fairy races for the gamer grrrls out there... what gives WoTC????

I hope Steel_Wind didnt just ban me from the forums for that!

_________________
Men Smell Funny!!!

"Because you like 4e?"

I've been polite so far, but it seems to me that you are inclined to start an edition war here. Which is okay, but when people are posting opinions you don't like? It's no answer just to discount them because, well, it suits your interest to do so and you happen to disagree.

So yeah, when I say that Eladrin, Dragonborn, Warforged and Tieflings as PC races turn me off of the fluff of 4E? That's because I meant what I say and I say what I meant. I don't like them as PC races. It does not sit with my preference of what I want from a game world and rule setting and my personal expectations of what I want from a game world. It may be what you want, but it isn't what I want. Does that mean that the whole of the rules are "bad" as a consequence? No, it doesn't. I think I've made that fairly clear.

But does that mean the fluff does not appeal to me? Damn right it does.

Stripped down to the basics, the overall market segment that 4E is targeting with Eladrin, Dragonborn, Warforged, and Tiefling PCs isn't me and my gaming group. Generalizing upon that and expanding on that theme a little, I don't think they are targeting gamers who started playing in the late 70s and are now in their 40s and 50s, ok? I'm sure there are many of my crotchety brethren who are okay with Eladrin and Dragonborn PCs - but for the most part? The majority of my fellow grognards? We don't like it.

That doesn't make me right and you wrong. It does, however, mean that when I don't like the flavour of something? It means I don't like it. That isn't a view which is subject to reversal on appeal, ok?

_________________
.Robert