Poll: D&D or Pathfinder?

[Hive Mind]

I've played 3.5, 4th Ed. and Pathfinder, but I still couldn't answer, considering our DM would pretty much literally rather all our characters died before we actually get past level 3 in Pathfinder. He's "ultra-realistic" in his campaign setting, meaning a spell like Shocking Grasp or a feat like Cleave is seen as something "extremely rare and legendary" or something like that in his game world. Honestly, if we're never going to level enough to be able to actually get a feel for Pathfinder compared to 3.5, why even bother with the change? We might as well play GURPS, then...

But that's enough ranting from me.

Eh. That's too much realism for me in my escapist, fantasy hobby, thank you.

Yeah, I agree there. He pulled a lot of inspiration for his world from a bunch of fantasy literature that pretty much has nothing to do with 90% of the stuff in D&D and Pathfinder and still tries to use the Pathfinder system for his campaigns. They're still fun, but I still wish I could get a real feel for the system.

Nothing at all against your DM -- not trying to insult them -- but I'd tell them to ease up. Sounds like they are hampering the player's ability to have fun, if not ruining it, by stubbornly sticking to their own ideals.

No doubt you've mentioned it with them, but I'd give it another go.

 

[Indecipherable]

4e did some great things:

More interesting melee powers (not just full attack)
More mobile combat (strategic movements, and less emphasis on full attack)
Less reliance on priests (second wind/various other self heals, leaders are a great addition)

But it also pretty much destroyed everything else by being so fantastically generic. Wizards are a joke. I'd like to see how much you'd have to rewrite to make a Priest of an evil God (for arguments sake, let's say something to do with disease) when all your powers are basically about you shooting holy laser beams from your hands. pew pew.

Pathfinder for all its inherited warts is probably the better system.

 

[ace_of_something]

I've played d&d for twenty years or so now. Many other rpgs as well. I got to say when 2nd switched to 3rd and 3.5 we hated it at first. Same thing happened from 3.5 to 4th. Now I rather like 4th very quick and streamlined.
Looking back 3.5 got to be a hydra-like mess. After playing Pathfinder (a few times with a few different DMS) I got to say I would call it 3.25 not 3.75 because it seems to me they just took out some of the more stupid rules and restrictions rather than really added anything.

Currently Playing a Savage Worlds campaign set in WWII but with werewolves, vampires and the like.

Sums up how I feel about the 'they changed it now it sucks' crowd.

 

[Murais]

OWoD is my favorite pnp system/setting.

But out of those two, Pathfinder. 4th Ed took out a lot of the vagueness and gray areas that one can flesh out with RP, and it makes me sad. Streamlined combat, two-dimensional characters. Bleh. I don't play my PnP for the combat. I can get that in any gods damned RPG. What I can't get, is the ability to flesh out characters with consequences and reactions that aren't limited to "preset" choices.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

Actually, I like 4th Ed fine. I just like Pathfinder better.

Also, Pathfinder is free: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

 

[crudus]

3.75 fixes a lot of stuff, also rogue talents FTW

Oh so many rogue talents *nerdgasm*. My only complaint with Pathfinder is they need better prestige classes.

 

[Keith Reedy]

Hadn't heard of pathfinder I'll check it out. 4th ed works fine but just feels bland. The powers seem to make it feel like a video game as opposed to the great breadth of options in the earlier editions, AD&D is my fav dnd. I like gurps so long as the players understand if they min-max I will kill their character.

 

[Electrohydra]

Wait, what D&D^^

because IMO:
PF>4E
PF>3.5 if your DM does not know about rule 0 or ignores it
3.5>PF if your DM does know about and use efficiently rule 0

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I'm an AD&D man through and through.

 

[natster43]

From what I know from what all of my friends say Pathfinder is better than 3.5. But I have only played 3.5 and 4, and felt 4 was worse than 3.5. so I guess my vote still goes for D&D.

 

[monstersquad]

Neither. I prefer GURPS.

I prefer to roleplay a game and have fun, not spend all night doing hard math.

 

[JohnnyCakes]

I always thought Pathfinder was pretty well designed, and wanted to switch over, but it was rough getting my group to switch over because I'm a piss poor DM.

 

[nomad240]

I started with fourth did not liek it very much downloaded all of 3.5 a couple of months later convinced some friends to join and boom every tuesday is now DnD night we are also looking into Star Wars Rpg with the solemn vow that if anyone picks a gungan we'll beat the snot out of 'em (( or worse yet they have to roleplay with..... the voice! duh duh DUUHHHH)) a friend has been hankering for some scifi so yeah

 

[nomad240]

Wait, what D&D^^

because IMO:
PF>4E
PF>3.5 if your DM does not know about rule 0 or ignores it
3.5>PF if your DM does know about and use efficiently rule 0

rule Zero? could you tell me?

 

[monstersquad]

Whitewolf.

*nods*

Yes, I've also played a shitload of Vampire, both on paper and in LARP.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Wait, what D&D^^

because IMO:
PF>4E
PF>3.5 if your DM does not know about rule 0 or ignores it
3.5>PF if your DM does know about and use efficiently rule 0

rule Zero? could you tell me?

I believe rule 0 is "when the DM says throws a rule out the window because it sucks, you listen to the DM and don't complain"

The problem is, not all players know (or are willing to follow) rule 0.

Also, I don't agree about the rule 0 thing. I find the classes much more satisfying as a player in 3.5.

Being a cleric in 3.5 sucks because you spend all your spells on healing. With Channel Positive in Pathfinder, you can actually cast your spells as spells, and use your channels to heal.

Paladin's smite lasts all combat instead of one attack.

Rangers and Rogues get extra stuff.

Fighters get stuff besides feats (and some nice new feats).

Wizards and Sorcerers get abilities for when they run out of spells (or when they're saving spells for later in the dungeon).

Rule breaks aside, that is what I love about Pathfinder - the longer adventuring day it produces.

 

[Electrohydra]

Rule 0 is the rule that states that the DM is always right, and in any conflict between rule 0 and another printed rule, rule 0 wins. I'm not sure if it's actually called rule 0 in the books, but it IS in the dungeon master's guide, and an unwritten rule in most systems. It basically comes from the fact that it's the DM's job to make sure everyone is having fun, and that fun is more important than rules, so rule 0 is there to make sure he can.

So yeah, rule 0 basically takes care of most blatant unevenness of D&D 3.5 when used correctly.


Oh, and on the subject of good systems, Friend computer is your friend.