Poll: D&D or Pathfinder?

[monstersquad]

I've been roleplaying pen-and-paper RPGs for about 15 years now, I started in 2nd ED D&D, moved up to 3rd and 3.5, then I bought 4th ed out of sheer faith. I played it for a few months, but now it's "the game to which we only refer in a manner most obtuse". Then I found Pathfinder, which I've been running weekly, non-stop for over 4 months. i just wanted to know what the public opinion was concerning this, and if other people have been converted from electronic RPGs to either product.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I started D&D with 3rd ED, then 3.5 came out and I stayed with 3, then 4 came out and I stayed with 3.....I don't like change

 

[Signa]

Does anyone even know what Pathfinder is? I only know about it because of some of my friends.

For those wondering, it's basically D&D 3.75 instead of the leap they took to 4.0.

 

[King Phar]

Pathfinder is a great update to the 3.5 rules, and best of all it's free.

 

[Toriver]

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.

 

[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.

 

[crudus]

I play Pathfinder. It seems much less bland than 4.0. Granted I understand most of the changes. All of the classes just seem the same.

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.

Sounds like one of them elitist DMs. This is also why it is called "magic". I have gotten into this argument before. You will only find "extremely rare and legendary" qualities in adventurers/your characters because they don't have a 50% chance of being killed by a cat (unlike commoners).

 

[Toriver]

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.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I've been roleplaying pen-and-paper RPGs for about 15 years now, I started in 2nd ED D&D, moved up to 3rd and 3.5, then I bought 4th ed out of sheer faith. I played it for a few months, but now it's "the game to which we only refer in a manner most obtuse". Then I found Pathfinder, which I've been running weekly, non-stop for over 4 months. i just wanted to know what the public opinion was concerning this, and if other people have been converted from electronic RPGs to either product.

Pathfinder for the Win.

I played some 4e, but while it was mildly fun, I far prefer Pathfinder.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Does anyone even know what Pathfinder is? I only know about it because of some of my friends.

For those wondering, it's basically D&D 3.75 instead of the leap they took to 4.0.

Pathfinder PRD

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

For anyone who wants Pathfinder rules for free.

 

[drizztmainsword]

I got sick of DnD a long time ago and started making my own system with a friend . Haven't played Pathfinder, but it looks really similar to 3.5, and neither of us like 3.5 anymore.

Oh, and in case anybody was wondering, 4.0 is an abomination against pen-and-paper.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I got sick of DnD a long time ago and started making my own system with a friend . Haven't played Pathfinder, but it looks really similar to 3.5, and neither of us like 3.5 anymore.

Oh, and in case anybody was wondering, 4.0 is an abomination against pen-and-paper.

I would say that Pathfinder is a "fixed" 3.5 - it balances the base classes (better than 3.5 anyway) and patches a few game-breaking exploits.

 

[Toriver]

I play Pathfinder. It seems much less bland than 4.0. Granted I understand most of the changes. All of the classes just seem the same.

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.

Sounds like one of them elitist DMs. This is also why it is called "magic". I have gotten into this argument before. You will only find "extremely rare and legendary" qualities in adventurers/your characters because they don't have a 50% chance of being killed by a cat (unlike commoners).

Haha, yeah. His whole thing with the campaigns he runs is that we're NOT "legendary heroes", we're commoners who, some way or another, end up going off on adventures, kinda like Frodo and Sam getting the One Ring foisted upon them. So if 99% of commoners can't do awesome stuff, we shouldn't expect to do awesome stuff either. At least that's how he rationalizes it. Which means, yes, we have just slightly under a 50% chance of getting killed by a cat.

 

[drizztmainsword]

I got sick of DnD a long time ago and started making my own system with a friend . Haven't played Pathfinder, but it looks really similar to 3.5, and neither of us like 3.5 anymore.

Oh, and in case anybody was wondering, 4.0 is an abomination against pen-and-paper.

I would say that Pathfinder is a "fixed" 3.5 - it balances the base classes (better than 3.5 anyway) and patches a few game-breaking exploits.

I don't doubt that, and there was plenty of room for balancing in 3.5. My friend and I wanted to break out of the rather rigid "class" structure that's nearly universal in RPGs.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

Yes, my vote tied it up! Go D&D!

 

[SurfPenguin]

The question that popped into my head when I saw this poll was 'Which D&D?' I'm an ancient bastard that has played or read EVERY edition edition of the D&D rules from the 'white box' edition up to the current day. If given a choice there are editions of D&D that I would rather play than others (AD&D 1st edition, the Moldvay/metzner boxed sets, and 'first trilogy' 4.0.) Note that 3rd and 3.5 are not on this list. I consider them crunchy messes, and from what I've seen of Pathfinder, it's just more of that with a new coat of paint.

 

[trooper6]

Neither. I prefer GURPS.

 

[loc978]

I haven't played strictly by any one book since 2nd edition. I still use mostly 2nd with a smattering of Star Wars D20 (for the vitality/wounds system and a hybridization of D&D magic memorization with a Star Wars Vitality/Force pool)... and a whole bunch of homebrewed "winging it"...
So I guess I'm indifferent to the available options. In my opinion, it's homebrew adaptation for the win.

 

[OneEyeX]

SAVAGE WORLDS!

No, kidding, Pathfinder > 4e for most situations.

 

[crudus]

Haha, yeah. His whole thing with the campaigns he runs is that we're NOT "legendary heroes", we're commoners who, some way or another, end up going off on adventures, kinda like Frodo and Sam getting the One Ring foisted upon them. So if 99% of commoners can't do awesome stuff, we shouldn't expect to do awesome stuff either. At least that's how he rationalizes it. Which means, yes, we have just slightly under a 50% chance of getting killed by a cat.

Actually, that was true in 3.5. It is fixed in Pathfinder. Anyway, he doesn't seem to realize there is a sort of natural selection that goes on with adventurers. Only the best (no matter their roots) and "most legendary" get to fight dragons, save damsels, etc. You guys have a front row seat to that. Adventurers are that 1%. They tend to find each other since they stick out quite a bit. He doesn't make you take NPC classes, does he?