I leafed through the Pathfinder Core book in my local games store when it came out- and was horrified to see, on one page, a picture of an example of all the races standing in bikinis! WTF?! This was so silly- it put me off completely. Couldn't take it seriously after that.
@RedBladeShining I think the idea is to give a general idea of what the various races look like without tying them to a specific "look", that is, not looking like one of the classes over all the others (basically allowing the reader to mentally "paper doll" different classes onto them)
Of course, it could always be worse. You could be looking at Pathfinder as a White Wolf production, and have that page show all the races naked.
I actually really enjoyed 4th edition a lot when I played it. HOWEVER, after playing Pathfinder it really is my preferred fantasy rpg rules set now. I can understand why people would prefer 4e, or why people would prefer Pathfinder. Really both games are really good, and I give Wizards props for having some balls with the 4e revision.
um..how can you not like the d20 system? uh, it saved gaming. original redbox released 1974. ad&d 1977, ad&d 2nd ed. 1989. span 15 years. 3rd 2000, 3.5 2003, 4th 2008. span 8 years. Not to mention the multitude of other games that jumped onto the d20 system, like star wars rpg, L5R, etc. etc. D&D was dying, gaming was dying, d20 saved it.
@jharrod123 And the hybrid car concept was dead until Toyota released the Prias. That doesn't change the fact that the Prias is out-performed by many other cars in its price range.
@jharrod123 Just because something is popular doesn't make it good. maybe a better analogy is the twilight series. Its bad fan fiction that somehow got published but it revived public interest in vampire fiction. D20 was the same. It revived interest in gaming but that doesn't make it the best game out there, it doesn't even make it good. It just makes it well publicized.
@geeksqrd So you are arguing with my main point, that d20 saved gaming, by rewording the same point, and stressing that it is still unlikable. I never said it was the best system, I said it saved D&D along with the PnP gaming industry as a whole.
Pathfinder is amazing. Coupled with Ultimate Combat and Magic (Shitloads of base classes, prestiges, and millions of archetypes) I couldn't ask for a better tabletop.
I must say I have played since AD&D loved it. 3.5 is awesomeness but very tweakable. Pathfinder is simply amazing also very tweakable but makes playing basic characters more worthwhile. 4Ed i have not played but from what i have read it is too much like a video game. Additionally, you need to buy so many books if you really want to build unique characters. Also, i hate how you cant play evil alignments. Not every fantasy story is good vs evil there are always shades of grey like in reality.
I'm amazed he didn't go into the new classes. The fact that you can be an alchemist or a witch or an oracle what have you is what really adds to the variety and intrigue of the game.
@ 1:39 that uh.... that IS the creatures knee right??????? If not, with that tongue and that uh.... must have a very happy demon wife. Mind firmly in gutter!
I need help. Pathfinder Fantasy or Savage Worlds Fantasy!? My head is going to emplode! I have to choice one withing 2 months. What kind of players like whitch?
Yeah, after playing this, don't think I could go back to 3.5. Even having my monk killed and turned was fun. As for 4th, that's nothing more then an MMO on paper in my opinion. All the classes seem really similar. There's a bit of variety but most of the customization seems to have been stripped for the sake of simplicity which takes. Not to mention the focus seems more on combat then roleplaying. If you want combat there's plenty of games out there to suit that desire.
Pathfinder is really very superior to 4e, I never liked D&D or any D20 system to be sincere... it was this product that changed my mind, and I also read the 4e rules, there is no way to compare them. very polished, very neat.
Sadly, Pathfinder is going straight in the same line of 3.X. Instead of Prestige Classes they use Archetypes but, for the most part is the same. More and more eternal peat chains, overload of new classes. Basically, the only thing that Pathfinder did was nerfing magic. And it wasn't necessary at all.
I'm actually new to the rpg games. Granted I'm just beginning to wrap my mind around building a character in Pathfinder. To me, Who normally plays silly action video games like Spyro, Crash, Okami, etc. you can imagine this is 'slightly' more difficult than that for me. But even though I'm still not fully understanding the concept... I do like-rather, love Pathfinder.
I have also begun to learn D&D to compare them to each other. I have to say... Pathfinder's kind of winning out so far.
@XDSocks For being a first timer, I'd recommend just reading the core rulebook and understanding what exactly it does and if you need to, write down exactly the example next to your spell list if you wish to keep track. It takes practice, but with mostly all rpg games, you'll get the hang of it fairly quickly.
@Wootedness It's coming along really well. I've managed to get combat down (mostly) and I just sort of got the hang of magic. I've been through character creation with all of the players, and the party consists of a Human Wizard, a Human Ranger, a Half-Elf Bard and a Dwarf Paladin. Now I need to brush up on combat, teach everyone else, and get the hang of GMing. Everyone's as excited as I am, I'm hoping this will go well :D
In 2009 I was dumb enough to think that 4th Ed was going to be awesome. Now, I know that Pathfinder is the best damned game out there. It is a return to the best D&D edition and makes it so much better. Thank you, Paizo, thank you for making this amazing game!
Like the video. The video quality is a little cheesy. Reminds me of the public channel. I wish you lived in my city so you could teach me how to play D&D and Pathfinder.
It's always irritating to see how personally fans of 4e take any criticism of their favorite system. You'd think he was insulting their children or something, goddamn.
I don't really play either game, but from what I saw you bashed 4.0 and then you praised this game for its art and how it was barely a rewrite of 3.5 rules? Gotta say, your reviews seem pretty shallow. Lol.
@DayP505 I don't see how it's shallow. He didn't like 4th edition because it changed everything about DnD, as he said, and he likes Pathfinder because it simply cleaned up what was already presented, as a new edition is supposed to do. They seem to be diametrically opposed viewpoints. Nothing shallow about that.
the only thing i don't dig about the PF book is that the flavor text at the beginning of each chapter is soooo cheesy and poorly written that it would make RA Salvador blush.
Glad to know that somebody still knows the difference between role-playing and roll playing .Personally I think 4th ed. is a giant step back. It lacks cinema, character interaction, story and imagination. Gygax stated that the uniqueness of D&D was that it took place in the shared imagination without figures or anything. Watching 4th ed. I get sad seeing these kids who don't know what they've lost, hunkered over laptops, not talking, no laughter.-there is a better way.
Pathfinder is D&D there is some other inferior game that calls it's self D&D these days is not. If you want to play D&D check this out stay away from 4E.
Been playing D&D sense '84. I have not played 4E, I do love Warhammer rpg. I find Pathfinder to be way way better than 3.5 as well as all of its predecessors.
I decided to pick up playing AD&D after 30 years away and found Pathfinder. Does anyone know of an online version that could be played live over the internet? I live around very few people.
Remember that your argument is partly that optimized feats help a fighter overcome his vast weakness of being able to say, "I full-round attack," and very little else. Only you're assuming at the same time because you don't know what a fallacy is that the Wizard or Cleric obviously did not do the same thing and are having creatures save against their spells when there are an idiotic number of ways to prevent that from actually happening.
@Darwinism215 Well, it's not that strange that a guy without magic can't do a plethora of attacks. Even then, there are some other options: you could try to disarm the oponent, flip a table to use it like cover, attack the place where he's standing on, kick sand to his eyes... but giving a fighter special attacks is completely out of a traditional sword & sorcery scenario and more in a video-game line.
Yessssss, I knew I could get you to take the VIDJA GAMES IN MAH D&D route. Why is giving fighters completely rational abilities outside of traditional sword and sorcery, exactly? Did you never once watch Conan, or Red Sonja? Have you not read a single fantasy novel that depicts fantastic melee combat sequences? Oh, nope, those must be all invalid points because VIDJA GAMES HAVE THEM TOO. Oh and I like how your idea to 'fix' casters amounts to, "Houseruuuules," instead of balanced classes.
@Darwinism215 I was not talking about giving attack options (wich, BTW is something I use in my games). I was talking about special attacks with a fixed number of uses. I don't care how you see it, it's something taken from videogames. I've read fantasy novels and never saw a "special attack".
And stop with the balance obsession. Back in the AD&D days Invisibility lasted 24 hours. No one cared about it being "broken". And, you call a house rule to forbid a single feat?
@Grandstra Can you name a single video game that has attacks you can only use once per day? Because, you know, they don't exist. In fact it's pretty easy to argue that it's just a refinement of D&D; how else do you explain paladins being only able to smite X times per day, or Barbarians only being able to rage a certain number of times per day, or druids only being able to shapeshift so many times? These are all examples of 3.5 "dailies".
@Darwinism215 We are not talking about extraordinary or supernatural abilities. We are talking about mundane attacks. Mundane attacks should NOT be restricted in uses.
@Grandstra So getting really angry is a supernatural ability now? Also I want to remind you that you're actually arguing that martial daily/encounter powers are not realistic in a setting where people regularly shoot fire out of their hands. Also please explain why psuedo-Vancian casting is realistic.
Is it ideal? Of course not. There will always be nits to pick but 4E has done the best job of making every class viable as far as you want to take that class. Something 3/3.5E failed utterly at.
@Darwinism215 I said also extraordinary, reffering to berserker rage. Is not only "getting really angry": is entering a trance where only rage is in your mind and your body strengthens beyond its normal limits. Heck, you can even get extra hit points because of it. And shooting fire from your hands if magic. Magic can ignore physical laws. If you want a similiar system for martial powers do something like Anime Beyond Fantasy which called it "ki" and admited it's supernatural.
@Grandstra Barbarians are not supernatural. Do you honestly think berserkers, who actually did exist, channeled supernatural energy? Or did they just get really goddamn angry and get a huge adrenaline boost because of it? Also what physical laws are you referencing that deal with how many times a fighter can swing his sword because I've never heard of those and it seems pretty silly when you consider feats and PrCs in D&D that are in no way magical but let a man throw the entire planet.
@Darwinism215 No, it's not the same. Using berserker rage you are pushing your body to your limits. 4 edition special attacks are just simply attacks. And per/encounter uses are simply a stupid mechanic. So, I can use a power within just 2 minutes because it's used in 2 different encounters. But I can't use it in the same encounter even if it lasts 5 minutes. No, per/encounter is a mechanic that should have never been.
@Grandstra So using daily attacks you're pushing your body to the limit. Also encounter powers only recharge with short rests which take five minutes, and combat rounds are six seconds long with your average combat going on no longer than 15-20 rounds if they are amazingly long. So that's two minutes, tops, where you have to actively rest for five minutes to get your encounters back
@Grandstra But don't let your poor understanding of 4E interfere with your bile just pretend like you know what you're talking about and idiots will agree.
@Grandstra Hey, look, another strawman argument! Well done! So I guess me pointing out how your understanding of the rules is shaky at best counts as being a '4venger' which just sounds silly? So when you pointed out that Divine Metamagic isn't in core Pathfinder you're being a 3.5venger?
@Darwinism215 I was simply exagerating. I hate per/encounter powers. I didn't accepted them in 3ed for instance. I banned everything that worked with that system in my games.
Pinting out that DMM isn't core in pathfinder simply means that you should't design something trying to avoid something that's in a non-core book. A Dungeon Master has the last word on banning content that makes you wonder what was smoking the guy that designed it (I'm looking at you, Planar Shepperd).
@Grandstra The entire point of at-will/encounter/dailies is to give every class something to do, though. Compared to a melee class in 3/3.5 that isn't a twinked Hulking Hurler or spiked chain tripper only being able to say, "I full-round attack," for every round while the Cleric gets to Flamestrike and the Wizard gets to Fireball and the Druid gets to Call Lightning. The point of D&D is to enjoy yourself, and that's much easier to do when everyone is relatively equal. I mean, hell, bards.
@Darwinism215 There are more ways than making everyone funtionally equal. Just look at Anima Beyond Fantasy: there are four supernatural powers; ki, magic, summoning and psionics. They all work completely different between them. Making all systems the same just kills variety and unique flavors.
@Grandstra The only way the system is the same is in that everyone gets the same classifications of powers, though. Was 3.5E horrible because everyone got BAB? Were all casters devoid of uniqueness because they used a Vancian system? If you want you can imagine martial classes powers being based off of ki; there is literally nothing preventing you from imagining the power source be it getting tired from more powerful attacks or channeling your ki to achieve greater results.
@Darwinism215 Casters used a vancian system, but some of the used it in a different way. Psionics was a power point based system, warlocks had unlimited but weak powers, binders could gain the power of entitys to gain powers, incarnum was another different system... those are the points I try to say.
@Grandstra This seems to be your problem; you either can't use your imagination in regards to the powers or you simply don't want to because then your arguments would fall apart.
@Darwinism215 No. I just want mundane martial classes to remain mundane. You can give them mundane maneuvers without limited uses. For example, a jumping attack which deals more damage the higher you roll in a jump check. A counter-attack that allows you to disarm your opponent... it's not that difficult.
@Grandstra So make a Fighter and never do anything but use at-wills... it's not that difficult. And why are you hung up on limited uses? We've been over this with barbarians; arbitrary limits on powerful abilities fit the system perfectly and have since 2E.
@Grandstra Just putting this out there if you'd just say, "Well I just don't really like 4E," I'd let it rest but you want to validate it by making up reasons to hate it and you don't care if those reasons have any logical basis.
@Darwinism215 If I remember you were the one who started it by giving an unwanted answer to my comment of what I like and dislike of Pathfinder. I was not talking about 4ed then.
@Grandstra Yes but you are the one that brought 4E up. I'm just happy poking holes in all your silly excuses to dislike 4E.
4E is easier to play, actually balanced, and that's what I prefer in my gaming experiences. If you like something different that's great but what you're doing here is like someone saying that Golden Delicious is the worst apple and Granny Smith is obviously better because of these facts.
@Darwinism215 Easier to play can mean "too simple". Balanced? It's not a PvP MMORPG, it's a team-based game. And let me doubt that it retains balance after lots an lots of books and combo options. If you remember, that's what killed 3ed. If you like it, well, fine for you. I preffer complex games.
@Grandstra The individual power choices, feats, and paragon paths still allow for a huge amount of customization so I really don't see it as too simple. And the system isn't OGL anymore which means people can't just release horribly balanced splatbooks and expect DMs to accept them. And why does it have to be a PvP game for balance to be important? Do you not care that some people in your party will no longer be useful after several levels? Just ignore them; they aren't real people like casters.
@Darwinism215 "Just ignore them; they aren't real people like casters." Well, in my games, warrior classes have been useful at higher levels. In fact, my caster players had to expend their resources wisely and don't waste them all in every encounter. I don't know what kind of DM you have, but clearly, he's doing it wrong.
@Grandstra So you're taking that "but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods." line from Wikipedia and assuming that it must be true because some people think that they might have.
@Grandstra Also you seem to ignore the first part of the sentence that states pretty clearly, "Most historians believe that berserkers worked themselves into a rage before battle, but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods."
Know what? When the majority of historians agree on something it's generally valid.
@Darwinism215 I didn't saw that in wikipedia. I read it years ago in a book about norse mythology and some reality behind it. Also, it could just be that berserkers were over-mythed.
@Grandstra Certainly possible, though there are plenty accounts of them and adrenaline can do crazy things. The point being that it is perfectly reasonable that there are certain attacks that you put more power into tire you out more. Especially if that's the only issue standing between you and balancing a system so that all classes are useful at all levels.
@Grandstra And you know why we played AD&D? Because it was what we had. Rose-tinted glasses don't make 2E suddenly a wonderful system; it was overly complex and favored casters even more than 3E. What's a fighter got in 2E? Oh boy, 5/2 attacks per two rounds! Oh dear the wizard just abused save or die spells and the fighter's now useless. Also you're doing that fallacy thing again. People did care about 2E being broken; you not caring does not equate to everyone not caring.
@Darwinism215 Favored casters? A mid level wizard could need more than 24 hours to prepare all his spells. And SoD spells usually had such horrible penaltys to iniciative that you could spend the whole assault casting a spell, which was killer: a single blow, a single hp damage and the spell failed and was consumed. No defensive casting, no concentration check, nothing. And don't forget how ridiculous hp a 2ed wizard had. Fighters in 2ed could deal massive amounts of damage.
@Grandstra So you probably want to look up strawman arguments because you're doing that now.
Oh and I like how SoD spells have penalties now. Like Finger of Death which has so many penalties. Or Death Spell. Oh, wait, no there are no penalties associated with those spells at all nor any of the other Save or X Bad Thing Happens By The Way I Just Cast Greater Malison On You And I'm A Specialist So -4 To That Save.
@Grandstra And even if you're only playing the Pathfinder core set wizards/sorcerors/clerics/druids/whatever are always going to out-strip fighters/rogues/rangers unless you're playing the comedy option caster who you think is 'unique' because you gimped his stats. It's all a huge wish fulfillment fantasy. For the first four levels your wizard(nerd) depends on those damned fighters(jocks) but your massive mindpowers to rewrite reality soon relegate him to the back row. TAKE THAT JOCKS!
The Cleric casts Divine Power and melees better than the Fighter, who basically just sits there and rolls a few times every rounds to see what he does unless he's a trip-fighter using the most idiotic tripping rules imaginable, and the Wizard casts Passwall, Fly, and Invisibility and then barring retarded DM-generated Deus Ex Machinas no one else has a role. A game should not encourage this simply for the sake of people who aren't casters.
@Darwinism215 Guess what? Invisibility works better when casted on a rogue. The game is fine, the problem is at those players who don't know how to play as a team. And the cleric casts divine power and melees well... for a few rounds. And without a fighter's wide selection of feats.
@Grandstra So because something MAY fail a saving throw, even though it shouldn't unless you forgot to take feats on your wizard, it totally balances out that you can dominate any monster ever. And a cleric in 3E or 3.5 can easily cast Divine Power(and other self-buffs) for as long as required because of Divine Metamagic, which easily outstrips any usefulness a fighter can gain through feats.
@Darwinism215 If the problem is Divine Metamagic (which, BTW, doesn't exist in Pathfinder) simply forbid it. Or maybe persistent spells. If the problem is a feat simply forbid it, not a whole class.
Oh and hahahahahaha shocked at D&D being tabletop-like? What other editions are people playing that the game is not, at its core, a miniature wargame with elements of roleplay added as desired by the DM? That is all D&D has ever been and nothing about 4E changes the amount of RP you can put into it, just like you could RP within AD&D's horrendous system.
@Grandstra Yeah, castrating magic users definitely did not happen nor would it have been a bad move. I love how grognards love to think that it was natural and right that the arcanes/divines could reduce any threat to triviality but anything that impinged on that ability in the slightest, and Pathfinder was the slightest impingement, is a horrible, horrible thing and you should kill yourself for thinking about it
@Darwinism215 "reduce any threat to triviality"... yeah, sure, whatever... Magic is magic and it should feel like magic, not like a fireball-spamming-video-game.
@Grandstra That's the best reason ever I've heard that magic-users should break the game for a whole party! Oh, wait, no, that's a horrible goddamn reason that always gets bandied around. Why should a single class be horrendously overpowered for 'feel' in what is nominally a party-based game? And it's not even a single class, especially in 2E but still in 3E. At later levels there is nothing a Fighter, Rogue, or other non-casting class do that an arcane or divine caster can't do better.
@Darwinism215 Maybe having infinite resources? Magic has limited uses. And don't forget that spells may fail. A succesful saving throw from the enemy and FLOP, you have wasted a spell.
Started a campaign in Pathfinder yesterday thanks to this review. We were getting out of hand in the 3.5 and the 4th edition we ditched after we read through the books. Pathfinder is now our main game, after Warhammer fantasy roleplay and thats mainly because the DM in that campaign is more active than me.
I'm currently playing in two pathfinder campaigns. One set in paizo's world and one set in greyhawk. I have read the 4e players guide, and I totally hate it. I think the worst part is what they did with alignments. If your like me and you can't stand 4e, pathfinder is the way to go. Or just stick with 3.5.
pathfinder does nothing to solve the actual problems of 3.5 and keeps them. you're effectively paying for someone's houserules, and they're not that good. wizards & clerics are still far too versatile and non-casters are still stuck in the "i can hit things and..." they start stumbling.
Pathfinder=old house with a new coat of paint and some work done to it. Yet nothing really new or innovative.
4E=Totally new house with new improvements that may or may not please everyone.
Play what you like and stop it with the edition wars. Your already non-existant street cred among the gaming community is not going to get any higher by bashing any edition.
4e is a fun system to go back and forth between it can get awfully tiring if you stick withh it though and i do my best to introduce different systems and settings to my players to keep them from being jaded.
my players like 4.0 they like 3.5 hell they like 2.0 (thaco and tacos night) they just hate playing any of those for more than 3-4 months
My friends and I just started playing DnD 3rd-3.5 Ed. We play with alot of house rules, so we're not really familiar with the issues of the 3x editions. Anyone mind telling me? I've seen Pathfinder books in stores and looked through them, and to be honest they're pretty nice.
Agreed with almost all your points. I also agree it has a bit of Power Creep in all the classes, but that is okay. Several classes really needed a boost (like Rangers). It is a very cleaned up version of our old Dnd game. I don't think it is that different though to call it its own game. It really is a 3.75 edition. Essentially Dnd 3.0 perfected...
I just wish Iron Kingdoms would be absorbed or adapted to it, and the DnD world would be perfect...
I bought 4E as my first D&D Pen and Paper RPG (i played Call of Cthulhu before) and i was shocked how Tabletop-like it is! I also hated, that i had to buy 3 books and still felt that some important things are missing...
Now i got Pathfinder and finally i can say: This is how a fantasy rpg has to be and best of all:
I completely love PathFinder. My local game store cant keep the game in stock,even all the members of my gaming group have given up on 3.5 and switched over to Pathfinder. I have played 4th once and i didnt like it at all. Totaly felt like a pen paper version of WoW. Game store cant even sell any of the books at all.
I tried 4E for my campaign setitng, and while I'm still playing a 4E game with my friends, and the campaign is pretty awesome, I don't think I'm going to run a 4E campaign ever. Mostly, it's because of the lack of custom choices you can do for your own campaign setting (deities, races, spells, etc.), and, while I don't have a lot of Savage Worlds stuff with me, I pretty much took away the 4E edits of my campaign setting, and started on Pathfinder. Now let's see how it turns on the table.
pathfinder is basicly what 4ed should have been, or at least a step in the right direction. 4ed felt like a hole burnt in the fabric of the d20 world.. :P. simplicity is good like perception and stealth to stream down skills, but 4ed took that to far!
My group currently plays both 4e and Pathfinder. I have to say that I really do like Pathfinder. It's a great take on D&D, and easily could have been what 4e became. My group and I also very much enjoy 4e, although I've been playing for 30 years, and 4e to me just doesn't have that same feeling. I'm the 4e DM in my group, and to me there's just not as much of a feeling of threat/danger for the players in 4e as other editions. Still, we have fun playing it, so I suppose it's fine.
I personally enjoy the Pathfinder game, as well as 4e once more books had been released for different options/classes to play other than the standard core set. That being said, I enjoyed pathfinder right out of the gate in its core book. That doesn't make Pathfinder better than 4e or vice versa. All this means is that in my opinion, pathfinder was able to deliver in a shorter amount of released products than 4e. Kurt don't be bothered by all the hate mail, you're expressing an honest opinion.
In my opinion, AD&D is still where it's at. Sure, the rule system wasn't the best or most comprehensive, but for some reason still provides the most satisfying game experience. 3rd edition provided complexity where you really didn't need any, and 4th edition was just...and insult. I guess if it is all about the tactical combat for you, yes you want something else, but if combat is only a story telling device for you to enhance the game experience then why do we need new books? Stick with AD&D!
i bought this new years eve hanging with my buddys at our local comic book/game store and all that night we had to keep taking it back from each other cause we were in awe of what they fixed, what they refined and the BEAUTIFUL art contained with in, needless to say im pretty sure my inner geek need a new change of pants and a cigarette...
Very good review. Got this game for christmas and am very happy. Didn't play alot of 3/3.5 and was disappointed by 4. But this makes me want to play again.
Reminds me of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia, everything in one book.
It's nostalgic and new at the same time. Great book.
To be honest Kurt a month ago I was a big fan of 4E..I was DMing a 4E game and playing in a 3.5 game. At first I was, he's 4E review sounds like an angry old grandpa who only enjoyed 2nd DnD.
BUT
After 3 years of 4E Im sooo tired. 4E sounds more like a tactical game than a RPG. They should name it DnD Tactic...remember something...
Anyway..I'm now an happy owner of Pathfinder. And I have to say that this game is actually a good balance between 3.5 and 4E. Curse WotC and their monopoly
In a lot of ways, I'd have to agree with you. I just recently got my hands on 4e D&D (PHB1/2, MM1/2, DMG), and it's very combat oriented with not much "customization" if you will. However, I do not regret buying the martial at all. 4e is a fun game, and for some people it's better (my gf might actually play, which is a big deal for me)
With that said, I'm picking up a copy of Pathfinder and the Beastiary ASAP. I have a soft spot for 3.5 :)
Call out to this guy. 4th edition was a large disappointment. They got some stuff right like buying monsters with XP but most of it was way to different from the D&D that I've know and loved. I'm going to check Pathfinder out see if it all that.
pathfinder is 150% better than 4th edition!!!! 4th edition is Waaaay to commercial. I agree with pathfinder is 3.7 More detail then 4th but not as much mess as in 3.5 If anyone has not yet tried this Please do so you will not be disappointed.
They fixed a few things that needed fixing and ignored a lot of stuff that needed fixing like the Fighter. I will admit that the PF fighter is much better than the 3.5 Fighter but thet both still suffer at high levels. As for streamlining the game I'm not seeing it. With some feats having different effects to new things added to the system it makes it more of a headache to run the game. I like the game but it getting way too much praise for very little change imo.
I loved Pathfinder from the moment I opened a copy of the Core Rulebook. It keeps the spirit of 3.5 and 3.0 going very well, as well as updating the bad parts of the game.
The core rules are setting neutral, so they fit into anything you want. There is an excellent Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting, but it's not necessary to play the game. The only thing taken from Chronicles are the names of the deities, but those are easily modified should you choose to. If you want to create your own world, or use something older like the 3E Forgotten Realms, go for it.
Yes, they released it a while ago. It's called the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary. A very good book, complete with guides to adjust the existing monsters and creating all kinds of monstrous player characters. There are templates too, like 3E.
@89witchhunter In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, my group has actually preferred homebrew campaign settings. As far as I've seen, Pathinder is much easier to do that with. They've simplified and steamlined a lot of tedious rules, but there's still complex stuff for those who like tuning their worlds.
The Pathfinder Campaign Setting book has its own world as wel, premade. I want that one too. :)
I have got to say Pathfinder is the best RPG to date. All of paizo's material is well worth it.
Supeq 2 weeks ago
I leafed through the Pathfinder Core book in my local games store when it came out- and was horrified to see, on one page, a picture of an example of all the races standing in bikinis! WTF?! This was so silly- it put me off completely. Couldn't take it seriously after that.
RedBladeShining 2 weeks ago
@RedBladeShining I think the idea is to give a general idea of what the various races look like without tying them to a specific "look", that is, not looking like one of the classes over all the others (basically allowing the reader to mentally "paper doll" different classes onto them)
Of course, it could always be worse. You could be looking at Pathfinder as a White Wolf production, and have that page show all the races naked.
thefailtrain08 4 days ago
I think that you just want the same races and classes from 3.5 in the same books for 4
superwag12 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just played D&D 3.5 using World of Orfel setting ... A W E S O M E
arajuiojuo 1 month ago
I liked 4E, but I respect his option.
Marveljew 1 month ago
"Cleans them up a bit."
A very little bit.
AngelSwordAF 1 month ago
Lol, I love you.
nowyouareazombie 2 months ago
We're having so much fun with parhfinder. Especially the serpent's skull adventure path.
EZcleanN 2 months ago
this game is SO much better than dnd 4th edition
sandragagnon88 2 months ago
I don't hate 4e. Its just a different. I like PF much more though.
XBurntBProductionsX 2 months ago
I actually really enjoyed 4th edition a lot when I played it. HOWEVER, after playing Pathfinder it really is my preferred fantasy rpg rules set now. I can understand why people would prefer 4e, or why people would prefer Pathfinder. Really both games are really good, and I give Wizards props for having some balls with the 4e revision.
SathingtonWaltz 3 months ago
um..how can you not like the d20 system? uh, it saved gaming. original redbox released 1974. ad&d 1977, ad&d 2nd ed. 1989. span 15 years. 3rd 2000, 3.5 2003, 4th 2008. span 8 years. Not to mention the multitude of other games that jumped onto the d20 system, like star wars rpg, L5R, etc. etc. D&D was dying, gaming was dying, d20 saved it.
jharrod123 3 months ago
@jharrod123 And the hybrid car concept was dead until Toyota released the Prias. That doesn't change the fact that the Prias is out-performed by many other cars in its price range.
geeksqrd 2 months ago
@geeksqrd wth does that have to do with gaming?
jharrod123 2 months ago
@jharrod123 Just because something is popular doesn't make it good. maybe a better analogy is the twilight series. Its bad fan fiction that somehow got published but it revived public interest in vampire fiction. D20 was the same. It revived interest in gaming but that doesn't make it the best game out there, it doesn't even make it good. It just makes it well publicized.
geeksqrd 2 months ago
@geeksqrd So you are arguing with my main point, that d20 saved gaming, by rewording the same point, and stressing that it is still unlikable. I never said it was the best system, I said it saved D&D along with the PnP gaming industry as a whole.
jharrod123 2 months ago
@geeksqrd You speak the true man.
PoisonHorusX 2 months ago
Pathfinder is amazing. Coupled with Ultimate Combat and Magic (Shitloads of base classes, prestiges, and millions of archetypes) I couldn't ask for a better tabletop.
hoodenmcburg 3 months ago
I must say I have played since AD&D loved it. 3.5 is awesomeness but very tweakable. Pathfinder is simply amazing also very tweakable but makes playing basic characters more worthwhile. 4Ed i have not played but from what i have read it is too much like a video game. Additionally, you need to buy so many books if you really want to build unique characters. Also, i hate how you cant play evil alignments. Not every fantasy story is good vs evil there are always shades of grey like in reality.
HoRuSArcheTyPe 4 months ago
I'm amazed he didn't go into the new classes. The fact that you can be an alchemist or a witch or an oracle what have you is what really adds to the variety and intrigue of the game.
ShadeStar64 4 months ago
@ShadeStar64
Well this -was- back in 2009. Don't think Advanced Player's Guide was out then.
RabiesBunny 3 months ago
This will suffice in holding me over until D&D 5E, unless that sucks too.
SwordMasterz2 4 months ago
@ 1:39 that uh.... that IS the creatures knee right??????? If not, with that tongue and that uh.... must have a very happy demon wife. Mind firmly in gutter!
lowew79 4 months ago
I need help. Pathfinder Fantasy or Savage Worlds Fantasy!? My head is going to emplode! I have to choice one withing 2 months. What kind of players like whitch?
inlife9 4 months ago
Pathfinder is the REAL D&D 3.5!
sikeokilla 5 months ago 11
I'm going to an eleven ranger. :)
Godzilla23i 5 months ago
I just started playing pathfinder Society. nice so far. I've just ordered the Pathfinder core rulebook. I've also played 50 fathoms RPG.
Godzilla23i 5 months ago
Yeah, after playing this, don't think I could go back to 3.5. Even having my monk killed and turned was fun. As for 4th, that's nothing more then an MMO on paper in my opinion. All the classes seem really similar. There's a bit of variety but most of the customization seems to have been stripped for the sake of simplicity which takes. Not to mention the focus seems more on combat then roleplaying. If you want combat there's plenty of games out there to suit that desire.
GameGeeks 6 months ago
@GameGeeks Actually an acuaintance that's gonna play in my Hunter the Reckoning campaign said the exact same thing it's WOW in a pen&paper format.
GrefOrlock 6 months ago
4:13, you were gonna say magic-users, huh? :p
ArchArturo 6 months ago
Pathfinder is really very superior to 4e, I never liked D&D or any D20 system to be sincere... it was this product that changed my mind, and I also read the 4e rules, there is no way to compare them. very polished, very neat.
Iluminatiflex 6 months ago
Sadly, Pathfinder is going straight in the same line of 3.X. Instead of Prestige Classes they use Archetypes but, for the most part is the same. More and more eternal peat chains, overload of new classes. Basically, the only thing that Pathfinder did was nerfing magic. And it wasn't necessary at all.
Grandstra 6 months ago
4 ED must burn! Burn I say! BURN!
vexxdk 7 months ago 5
I'm actually new to the rpg games. Granted I'm just beginning to wrap my mind around building a character in Pathfinder. To me, Who normally plays silly action video games like Spyro, Crash, Okami, etc. you can imagine this is 'slightly' more difficult than that for me. But even though I'm still not fully understanding the concept... I do like-rather, love Pathfinder.
I have also begun to learn D&D to compare them to each other. I have to say... Pathfinder's kind of winning out so far.
RacoonDog90 7 months ago
@RacoonDog90 I'm also starting Pathfinder, and I've just created mine. Now I'm trying to learn combat/magic etc D:
XDSocks 7 months ago
@XDSocks For being a first timer, I'd recommend just reading the core rulebook and understanding what exactly it does and if you need to, write down exactly the example next to your spell list if you wish to keep track. It takes practice, but with mostly all rpg games, you'll get the hang of it fairly quickly.
Wootedness 6 months ago
@Wootedness It's coming along really well. I've managed to get combat down (mostly) and I just sort of got the hang of magic. I've been through character creation with all of the players, and the party consists of a Human Wizard, a Human Ranger, a Half-Elf Bard and a Dwarf Paladin. Now I need to brush up on combat, teach everyone else, and get the hang of GMing. Everyone's as excited as I am, I'm hoping this will go well :D
XDSocks 6 months ago
@RacoonDog90 indeed i "Created" my own RPG by mixing Pathfinder and 4th edition (i only added 5 things from fourth)
LegitBacKd00rNiNJa69 7 months ago
Who said 4E was god?...shame on you.
kumakun17 7 months ago 3
In 2009 I was dumb enough to think that 4th Ed was going to be awesome. Now, I know that Pathfinder is the best damned game out there. It is a return to the best D&D edition and makes it so much better. Thank you, Paizo, thank you for making this amazing game!
Reilansa 7 months ago
Pathfinder is amazing! 4th edition is a giant pile of crap
ChrisNelson1450 7 months ago
Like the video. The video quality is a little cheesy. Reminds me of the public channel. I wish you lived in my city so you could teach me how to play D&D and Pathfinder.
lordolegus 7 months ago
It's always irritating to see how personally fans of 4e take any criticism of their favorite system. You'd think he was insulting their children or something, goddamn.
RabiesBunny 7 months ago
yes 4th edition feels like a freakin video game, and I'd rather play a video game than that, on the other hand I'm loving Pathfinder <3
SalchichaPolaca 8 months ago
im new to tabletop RPG's and Pathfinder is the first ever game iv played and i love it
TheLazEffect 9 months ago 2
@TheLazEffect I'm new to this rpg-stuff as well and I really wanna play this game!
eddie4ever6197 8 months ago
i've started pathfinder just because the books are easier to get...the only place to get 3.5 dnd books is ebay
FederationJade 9 months ago
@FederationJade Amazon is a good place too... better, in my opinion.
lingojac 8 months ago
Bias, but you can always get really good information from bias
stoolsboy 9 months ago
4th edition is junk. I am very glad to have pathfinder. WotC royally raped DnD when they made 4th.
tessaloba 9 months ago
0:49 why would people straggle your butt over your OPINIONS negative or positive
killgore333333 9 months ago
I don't really play either game, but from what I saw you bashed 4.0 and then you praised this game for its art and how it was barely a rewrite of 3.5 rules? Gotta say, your reviews seem pretty shallow. Lol.
DayP505 10 months ago
@DayP505 I don't see how it's shallow. He didn't like 4th edition because it changed everything about DnD, as he said, and he likes Pathfinder because it simply cleaned up what was already presented, as a new edition is supposed to do. They seem to be diametrically opposed viewpoints. Nothing shallow about that.
YamadaJisho 9 months ago
the only thing i don't dig about the PF book is that the flavor text at the beginning of each chapter is soooo cheesy and poorly written that it would make RA Salvador blush.
whalerofthestars 10 months ago
Pathfinder
knightoftheday1 11 months ago
Thanks Kurt,
Glad to know that somebody still knows the difference between role-playing and roll playing .Personally I think 4th ed. is a giant step back. It lacks cinema, character interaction, story and imagination. Gygax stated that the uniqueness of D&D was that it took place in the shared imagination without figures or anything. Watching 4th ed. I get sad seeing these kids who don't know what they've lost, hunkered over laptops, not talking, no laughter.-there is a better way.
Brightblade471 11 months ago
Pathfinder is D&D there is some other inferior game that calls it's self D&D these days is not. If you want to play D&D check this out stay away from 4E.
BloodyIgor 11 months ago
check the difference in likes and dislikes
PrometeusGod 11 months ago
Been playing D&D sense '84. I have not played 4E, I do love Warhammer rpg. I find Pathfinder to be way way better than 3.5 as well as all of its predecessors.
xUbastardx 1 year ago
you forsworn D20? Dude, I had done that for MedFan! and yet Pathfinder got my creative juice flowing like mad!
DamielBE 1 year ago
Hello,
I decided to pick up playing AD&D after 30 years away and found Pathfinder. Does anyone know of an online version that could be played live over the internet? I live around very few people.
thadeus62 1 year ago
Remember that your argument is partly that optimized feats help a fighter overcome his vast weakness of being able to say, "I full-round attack," and very little else. Only you're assuming at the same time because you don't know what a fallacy is that the Wizard or Cleric obviously did not do the same thing and are having creatures save against their spells when there are an idiotic number of ways to prevent that from actually happening.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Well, it's not that strange that a guy without magic can't do a plethora of attacks. Even then, there are some other options: you could try to disarm the oponent, flip a table to use it like cover, attack the place where he's standing on, kick sand to his eyes... but giving a fighter special attacks is completely out of a traditional sword & sorcery scenario and more in a video-game line.
Grandstra 1 year ago
Yessssss, I knew I could get you to take the VIDJA GAMES IN MAH D&D route. Why is giving fighters completely rational abilities outside of traditional sword and sorcery, exactly? Did you never once watch Conan, or Red Sonja? Have you not read a single fantasy novel that depicts fantastic melee combat sequences? Oh, nope, those must be all invalid points because VIDJA GAMES HAVE THEM TOO. Oh and I like how your idea to 'fix' casters amounts to, "Houseruuuules," instead of balanced classes.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 I was not talking about giving attack options (wich, BTW is something I use in my games). I was talking about special attacks with a fixed number of uses. I don't care how you see it, it's something taken from videogames. I've read fantasy novels and never saw a "special attack".
And stop with the balance obsession. Back in the AD&D days Invisibility lasted 24 hours. No one cared about it being "broken". And, you call a house rule to forbid a single feat?
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Can you name a single video game that has attacks you can only use once per day? Because, you know, they don't exist. In fact it's pretty easy to argue that it's just a refinement of D&D; how else do you explain paladins being only able to smite X times per day, or Barbarians only being able to rage a certain number of times per day, or druids only being able to shapeshift so many times? These are all examples of 3.5 "dailies".
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 We are not talking about extraordinary or supernatural abilities. We are talking about mundane attacks. Mundane attacks should NOT be restricted in uses.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra So getting really angry is a supernatural ability now? Also I want to remind you that you're actually arguing that martial daily/encounter powers are not realistic in a setting where people regularly shoot fire out of their hands. Also please explain why psuedo-Vancian casting is realistic.
Is it ideal? Of course not. There will always be nits to pick but 4E has done the best job of making every class viable as far as you want to take that class. Something 3/3.5E failed utterly at.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 I said also extraordinary, reffering to berserker rage. Is not only "getting really angry": is entering a trance where only rage is in your mind and your body strengthens beyond its normal limits. Heck, you can even get extra hit points because of it. And shooting fire from your hands if magic. Magic can ignore physical laws. If you want a similiar system for martial powers do something like Anime Beyond Fantasy which called it "ki" and admited it's supernatural.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Barbarians are not supernatural. Do you honestly think berserkers, who actually did exist, channeled supernatural energy? Or did they just get really goddamn angry and get a huge adrenaline boost because of it? Also what physical laws are you referencing that deal with how many times a fighter can swing his sword because I've never heard of those and it seems pretty silly when you consider feats and PrCs in D&D that are in no way magical but let a man throw the entire planet.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Learn to read. I said EXTRAORDINARY not supernatural.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Oh okay cool. Martial dailies are extraordinary. You shouldn't have a problem with them.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Check and mate!
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 No, it's not the same. Using berserker rage you are pushing your body to your limits. 4 edition special attacks are just simply attacks. And per/encounter uses are simply a stupid mechanic. So, I can use a power within just 2 minutes because it's used in 2 different encounters. But I can't use it in the same encounter even if it lasts 5 minutes. No, per/encounter is a mechanic that should have never been.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra So using daily attacks you're pushing your body to the limit. Also encounter powers only recharge with short rests which take five minutes, and combat rounds are six seconds long with your average combat going on no longer than 15-20 rounds if they are amazingly long. So that's two minutes, tops, where you have to actively rest for five minutes to get your encounters back
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Grandstra But don't let your poor understanding of 4E interfere with your bile just pretend like you know what you're talking about and idiots will agree.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Tipical 4venger: "OMG, 4ED IZ GOD AND IF YA DONN AGRI WIZ I YE ARE AN IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!"
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Hey, look, another strawman argument! Well done! So I guess me pointing out how your understanding of the rules is shaky at best counts as being a '4venger' which just sounds silly? So when you pointed out that Divine Metamagic isn't in core Pathfinder you're being a 3.5venger?
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 I was simply exagerating. I hate per/encounter powers. I didn't accepted them in 3ed for instance. I banned everything that worked with that system in my games.
Pinting out that DMM isn't core in pathfinder simply means that you should't design something trying to avoid something that's in a non-core book. A Dungeon Master has the last word on banning content that makes you wonder what was smoking the guy that designed it (I'm looking at you, Planar Shepperd).
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra The entire point of at-will/encounter/dailies is to give every class something to do, though. Compared to a melee class in 3/3.5 that isn't a twinked Hulking Hurler or spiked chain tripper only being able to say, "I full-round attack," for every round while the Cleric gets to Flamestrike and the Wizard gets to Fireball and the Druid gets to Call Lightning. The point of D&D is to enjoy yourself, and that's much easier to do when everyone is relatively equal. I mean, hell, bards.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 There are more ways than making everyone funtionally equal. Just look at Anima Beyond Fantasy: there are four supernatural powers; ki, magic, summoning and psionics. They all work completely different between them. Making all systems the same just kills variety and unique flavors.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra The only way the system is the same is in that everyone gets the same classifications of powers, though. Was 3.5E horrible because everyone got BAB? Were all casters devoid of uniqueness because they used a Vancian system? If you want you can imagine martial classes powers being based off of ki; there is literally nothing preventing you from imagining the power source be it getting tired from more powerful attacks or channeling your ki to achieve greater results.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Casters used a vancian system, but some of the used it in a different way. Psionics was a power point based system, warlocks had unlimited but weak powers, binders could gain the power of entitys to gain powers, incarnum was another different system... those are the points I try to say.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra This seems to be your problem; you either can't use your imagination in regards to the powers or you simply don't want to because then your arguments would fall apart.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 No. I just want mundane martial classes to remain mundane. You can give them mundane maneuvers without limited uses. For example, a jumping attack which deals more damage the higher you roll in a jump check. A counter-attack that allows you to disarm your opponent... it's not that difficult.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra So make a Fighter and never do anything but use at-wills... it's not that difficult. And why are you hung up on limited uses? We've been over this with barbarians; arbitrary limits on powerful abilities fit the system perfectly and have since 2E.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Grandstra Just putting this out there if you'd just say, "Well I just don't really like 4E," I'd let it rest but you want to validate it by making up reasons to hate it and you don't care if those reasons have any logical basis.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 If I remember you were the one who started it by giving an unwanted answer to my comment of what I like and dislike of Pathfinder. I was not talking about 4ed then.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Yes but you are the one that brought 4E up. I'm just happy poking holes in all your silly excuses to dislike 4E.
4E is easier to play, actually balanced, and that's what I prefer in my gaming experiences. If you like something different that's great but what you're doing here is like someone saying that Golden Delicious is the worst apple and Granny Smith is obviously better because of these facts.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Easier to play can mean "too simple". Balanced? It's not a PvP MMORPG, it's a team-based game. And let me doubt that it retains balance after lots an lots of books and combo options. If you remember, that's what killed 3ed. If you like it, well, fine for you. I preffer complex games.
BTW Granny Smith is my favourite apple.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra The individual power choices, feats, and paragon paths still allow for a huge amount of customization so I really don't see it as too simple. And the system isn't OGL anymore which means people can't just release horribly balanced splatbooks and expect DMs to accept them. And why does it have to be a PvP game for balance to be important? Do you not care that some people in your party will no longer be useful after several levels? Just ignore them; they aren't real people like casters.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 "Just ignore them; they aren't real people like casters." Well, in my games, warrior classes have been useful at higher levels. In fact, my caster players had to expend their resources wisely and don't waste them all in every encounter. I don't know what kind of DM you have, but clearly, he's doing it wrong.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Oh, and berserkers ingested drugs, they didn't just "get really angry".
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra So you're taking that "but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods." line from Wikipedia and assuming that it must be true because some people think that they might have.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Grandstra Also you seem to ignore the first part of the sentence that states pretty clearly, "Most historians believe that berserkers worked themselves into a rage before battle, but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods."
Know what? When the majority of historians agree on something it's generally valid.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 I didn't saw that in wikipedia. I read it years ago in a book about norse mythology and some reality behind it. Also, it could just be that berserkers were over-mythed.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Certainly possible, though there are plenty accounts of them and adrenaline can do crazy things. The point being that it is perfectly reasonable that there are certain attacks that you put more power into tire you out more. Especially if that's the only issue standing between you and balancing a system so that all classes are useful at all levels.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Grandstra And you know why we played AD&D? Because it was what we had. Rose-tinted glasses don't make 2E suddenly a wonderful system; it was overly complex and favored casters even more than 3E. What's a fighter got in 2E? Oh boy, 5/2 attacks per two rounds! Oh dear the wizard just abused save or die spells and the fighter's now useless. Also you're doing that fallacy thing again. People did care about 2E being broken; you not caring does not equate to everyone not caring.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Favored casters? A mid level wizard could need more than 24 hours to prepare all his spells. And SoD spells usually had such horrible penaltys to iniciative that you could spend the whole assault casting a spell, which was killer: a single blow, a single hp damage and the spell failed and was consumed. No defensive casting, no concentration check, nothing. And don't forget how ridiculous hp a 2ed wizard had. Fighters in 2ed could deal massive amounts of damage.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 You are doing that fallacy too. Just because you cared doesn't mean most people cared.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra So you probably want to look up strawman arguments because you're doing that now.
Oh and I like how SoD spells have penalties now. Like Finger of Death which has so many penalties. Or Death Spell. Oh, wait, no there are no penalties associated with those spells at all nor any of the other Save or X Bad Thing Happens By The Way I Just Cast Greater Malison On You And I'm A Specialist So -4 To That Save.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Grandstra And even if you're only playing the Pathfinder core set wizards/sorcerors/clerics/druids/whatever are always going to out-strip fighters/rogues/rangers unless you're playing the comedy option caster who you think is 'unique' because you gimped his stats. It's all a huge wish fulfillment fantasy. For the first four levels your wizard(nerd) depends on those damned fighters(jocks) but your massive mindpowers to rewrite reality soon relegate him to the back row. TAKE THAT JOCKS!
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Just for a couple of rounds until they realize they have run out of spells.
Grandstra 1 year ago
The Cleric casts Divine Power and melees better than the Fighter, who basically just sits there and rolls a few times every rounds to see what he does unless he's a trip-fighter using the most idiotic tripping rules imaginable, and the Wizard casts Passwall, Fly, and Invisibility and then barring retarded DM-generated Deus Ex Machinas no one else has a role. A game should not encourage this simply for the sake of people who aren't casters.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Guess what? Invisibility works better when casted on a rogue. The game is fine, the problem is at those players who don't know how to play as a team. And the cleric casts divine power and melees well... for a few rounds. And without a fighter's wide selection of feats.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra So because something MAY fail a saving throw, even though it shouldn't unless you forgot to take feats on your wizard, it totally balances out that you can dominate any monster ever. And a cleric in 3E or 3.5 can easily cast Divine Power(and other self-buffs) for as long as required because of Divine Metamagic, which easily outstrips any usefulness a fighter can gain through feats.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 If the problem is Divine Metamagic (which, BTW, doesn't exist in Pathfinder) simply forbid it. Or maybe persistent spells. If the problem is a feat simply forbid it, not a whole class.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 so if i want to play magical "medevil" thats simple i should play? (trippers wtf dont get me started anyone can trip if i recall)
apex588 9 months ago
Oh and hahahahahaha shocked at D&D being tabletop-like? What other editions are people playing that the game is not, at its core, a miniature wargame with elements of roleplay added as desired by the DM? That is all D&D has ever been and nothing about 4E changes the amount of RP you can put into it, just like you could RP within AD&D's horrendous system.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
Things I liked about Pathfinder:
1-more options.
2-consolidated the combat maneuvers modify.
3-some neat ieas.
Things I disliked about Pathfinder:
1-Nerfing magic. Finger of Death doesn't kill...
2-Keeping useless feats and endless feat trees.
3-Castrating magic using classes looking for an unnecessary balance.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra Yeah, castrating magic users definitely did not happen nor would it have been a bad move. I love how grognards love to think that it was natural and right that the arcanes/divines could reduce any threat to triviality but anything that impinged on that ability in the slightest, and Pathfinder was the slightest impingement, is a horrible, horrible thing and you should kill yourself for thinking about it
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 "reduce any threat to triviality"... yeah, sure, whatever... Magic is magic and it should feel like magic, not like a fireball-spamming-video-game.
Grandstra 1 year ago
@Grandstra That's the best reason ever I've heard that magic-users should break the game for a whole party! Oh, wait, no, that's a horrible goddamn reason that always gets bandied around. Why should a single class be horrendously overpowered for 'feel' in what is nominally a party-based game? And it's not even a single class, especially in 2E but still in 3E. At later levels there is nothing a Fighter, Rogue, or other non-casting class do that an arcane or divine caster can't do better.
Darwinism215 1 year ago
@Darwinism215 Maybe having infinite resources? Magic has limited uses. And don't forget that spells may fail. A succesful saving throw from the enemy and FLOP, you have wasted a spell.
Grandstra 1 year ago
"Forth Edition I'M LOOKING AT YOU AGAIN!" LOL!
jmonthe1st 1 year ago
4th edition? 4th edition sucked six thicks.
GODKINGLANDON 1 year ago 47
@GODKINGLANDON 4E sucks as a free action...and at will
beatboxpeej 1 year ago 55
Started a campaign in Pathfinder yesterday thanks to this review. We were getting out of hand in the 3.5 and the 4th edition we ditched after we read through the books. Pathfinder is now our main game, after Warhammer fantasy roleplay and thats mainly because the DM in that campaign is more active than me.
Thanks Kurt.
Calimbandil87 1 year ago
I'm currently playing in two pathfinder campaigns. One set in paizo's world and one set in greyhawk. I have read the 4e players guide, and I totally hate it. I think the worst part is what they did with alignments. If your like me and you can't stand 4e, pathfinder is the way to go. Or just stick with 3.5.
perrin275 1 year ago
pathfinder does nothing to solve the actual problems of 3.5 and keeps them. you're effectively paying for someone's houserules, and they're not that good. wizards & clerics are still far too versatile and non-casters are still stuck in the "i can hit things and..." they start stumbling.
oxybe22 1 year ago
@oxybe22
And here I thought I was paying for a modified system to better go with Paizo's absolutely wonderful base setting! Shame on me, I guess.
InconspicuousOrganic 1 year ago
Pathfinder=old house with a new coat of paint and some work done to it. Yet nothing really new or innovative.
4E=Totally new house with new improvements that may or may not please everyone.
Play what you like and stop it with the edition wars. Your already non-existant street cred among the gaming community is not going to get any higher by bashing any edition.
sureshot73A 1 year ago
4e is a fun system to go back and forth between it can get awfully tiring if you stick withh it though and i do my best to introduce different systems and settings to my players to keep them from being jaded.
my players like 4.0 they like 3.5 hell they like 2.0 (thaco and tacos night) they just hate playing any of those for more than 3-4 months
killgore333333 1 year ago
My friends and I just started playing DnD 3rd-3.5 Ed. We play with alot of house rules, so we're not really familiar with the issues of the 3x editions. Anyone mind telling me? I've seen Pathfinder books in stores and looked through them, and to be honest they're pretty nice.
Claizen 1 year ago
Hard to believe that 4e has been out for three, THREE, years! People either love it to death, or hate it even more.
pspboy7 1 year ago
Looove Pathfinder.
MidnightSun009 1 year ago
Agreed with almost all your points. I also agree it has a bit of Power Creep in all the classes, but that is okay. Several classes really needed a boost (like Rangers). It is a very cleaned up version of our old Dnd game. I don't think it is that different though to call it its own game. It really is a 3.75 edition. Essentially Dnd 3.0 perfected...
I just wish Iron Kingdoms would be absorbed or adapted to it, and the DnD world would be perfect...
krisfkline 1 year ago
I looked at 4E fairly closely and it felt too much like WoW, to be honest. Thanks for the insight on Pathfinder! :D
TtheWriter 1 year ago
@TtheWriter
Word! Same to me.
I bought 4E as my first D&D Pen and Paper RPG (i played Call of Cthulhu before) and i was shocked how Tabletop-like it is! I also hated, that i had to buy 3 books and still felt that some important things are missing...
Now i got Pathfinder and finally i can say: This is how a fantasy rpg has to be and best of all:
You can play it with just 2 books.
Shame on you greedy Wizzards of the Coast!
Apfelwein 1 year ago
Me and my uncals Played 4E for a few mouths but the sec pathfinder droped and we got a copy we like droped it right there and went to it.
dalepc2004 1 year ago
I think you should do the Advanced Player's Guide now that it's out. But that's because I am in love with Pathfinder.
eberik 1 year ago
@eberik yah my uncal is starting a campaign that book and i think im test playing The alchemist and my other uncals are doing orcals and inquisitors
dalepc2004 1 year ago
Sad but true. Pathfinder > DnD4E
Also, WFRP 3E > Pathfinder > 4EDnD
FPietros 1 year ago
Pathfinder rocks. Far superior to the travesty that is 4E. Good review.
EryxUK 1 year ago
I completely love PathFinder. My local game store cant keep the game in stock,even all the members of my gaming group have given up on 3.5 and switched over to Pathfinder. I have played 4th once and i didnt like it at all. Totaly felt like a pen paper version of WoW. Game store cant even sell any of the books at all.
Nevermore989 1 year ago
I tried 4E for my campaign setitng, and while I'm still playing a 4E game with my friends, and the campaign is pretty awesome, I don't think I'm going to run a 4E campaign ever. Mostly, it's because of the lack of custom choices you can do for your own campaign setting (deities, races, spells, etc.), and, while I don't have a lot of Savage Worlds stuff with me, I pretty much took away the 4E edits of my campaign setting, and started on Pathfinder. Now let's see how it turns on the table.
ArchArturo 1 year ago
pathfinder is basicly what 4ed should have been, or at least a step in the right direction. 4ed felt like a hole burnt in the fabric of the d20 world.. :P. simplicity is good like perception and stealth to stream down skills, but 4ed took that to far!
Sideshow1111 1 year ago
Pathfinder = new kid on the block
D&D 4e = destroyed reputation
pspboy7 1 year ago
My group currently plays both 4e and Pathfinder. I have to say that I really do like Pathfinder. It's a great take on D&D, and easily could have been what 4e became. My group and I also very much enjoy 4e, although I've been playing for 30 years, and 4e to me just doesn't have that same feeling. I'm the 4e DM in my group, and to me there's just not as much of a feeling of threat/danger for the players in 4e as other editions. Still, we have fun playing it, so I suppose it's fine.
rc7771 1 year ago
I personally enjoy the Pathfinder game, as well as 4e once more books had been released for different options/classes to play other than the standard core set. That being said, I enjoyed pathfinder right out of the gate in its core book. That doesn't make Pathfinder better than 4e or vice versa. All this means is that in my opinion, pathfinder was able to deliver in a shorter amount of released products than 4e. Kurt don't be bothered by all the hate mail, you're expressing an honest opinion.
GhalleonofDEATH 1 year ago
In my opinion, AD&D is still where it's at. Sure, the rule system wasn't the best or most comprehensive, but for some reason still provides the most satisfying game experience. 3rd edition provided complexity where you really didn't need any, and 4th edition was just...and insult. I guess if it is all about the tactical combat for you, yes you want something else, but if combat is only a story telling device for you to enhance the game experience then why do we need new books? Stick with AD&D!
peri2502 1 year ago
i bought this new years eve hanging with my buddys at our local comic book/game store and all that night we had to keep taking it back from each other cause we were in awe of what they fixed, what they refined and the BEAUTIFUL art contained with in, needless to say im pretty sure my inner geek need a new change of pants and a cigarette...
window459 1 year ago
See I have the book and having run and played Pathfinder I can only recommedn it to those who dislike 4.0.
sureshot73A 1 year ago
I never adopted 3.5 except, of course, for my Neverwinter Nights campaign, but I have it and 4th edition. I also have pathfinder.
I'm sticking with OSRIC, but if I had to pick between 3.5, 4th edition, and pathfinder I'd definitely pick Pathfinder.
Way to go WoC! You guys could screw up a free lunch.
urknighterrant 1 year ago
Hmm i shall buy this book. It sounds amazing~
Spoc1012 1 year ago
Very good review. Got this game for christmas and am very happy. Didn't play alot of 3/3.5 and was disappointed by 4. But this makes me want to play again.
Reminds me of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia, everything in one book.
It's nostalgic and new at the same time. Great book.
This one will be fun!
RealNemo235 1 year ago
just bought it
7omnia7 1 year ago
LOL funny beginning :D
BeastSoulEyes 1 year ago
Comment removed
MalikXHonor 1 year ago
To be honest Kurt a month ago I was a big fan of 4E..I was DMing a 4E game and playing in a 3.5 game. At first I was, he's 4E review sounds like an angry old grandpa who only enjoyed 2nd DnD.
BUT
After 3 years of 4E Im sooo tired. 4E sounds more like a tactical game than a RPG. They should name it DnD Tactic...remember something...
Anyway..I'm now an happy owner of Pathfinder. And I have to say that this game is actually a good balance between 3.5 and 4E. Curse WotC and their monopoly
beatboxpeej 1 year ago 33
@beatboxpeej
In a lot of ways, I'd have to agree with you. I just recently got my hands on 4e D&D (PHB1/2, MM1/2, DMG), and it's very combat oriented with not much "customization" if you will. However, I do not regret buying the martial at all. 4e is a fun game, and for some people it's better (my gf might actually play, which is a big deal for me)
With that said, I'm picking up a copy of Pathfinder and the Beastiary ASAP. I have a soft spot for 3.5 :)
BushidoPimpDemon 1 year ago
@beatboxpeej I have to agree with you there. I like the new updates they made to 3.5 rulings!
TwistingWays 10 months ago
I had the look at this book, and I really liked it, they improved alot of the annoying rules in 3.5
t0lar 1 year ago
Call out to this guy. 4th edition was a large disappointment. They got some stuff right like buying monsters with XP but most of it was way to different from the D&D that I've know and loved. I'm going to check Pathfinder out see if it all that.
Ursecx 2 years ago 4
compared to fantasy craft, PF is gimptastic!
Satakunta 2 years ago
pathfinder is 150% better than 4th edition!!!! 4th edition is Waaaay to commercial. I agree with pathfinder is 3.7 More detail then 4th but not as much mess as in 3.5 If anyone has not yet tried this Please do so you will not be disappointed.
minatochan 2 years ago
I am going to sound like a bit of a jerk, but of course it's commercial, it's meant to be a sold product!
Darkstar1484 2 years ago 2
They fixed a few things that needed fixing and ignored a lot of stuff that needed fixing like the Fighter. I will admit that the PF fighter is much better than the 3.5 Fighter but thet both still suffer at high levels. As for streamlining the game I'm not seeing it. With some feats having different effects to new things added to the system it makes it more of a headache to run the game. I like the game but it getting way too much praise for very little change imo.
sureshot73A 2 years ago 3
I loved Pathfinder from the moment I opened a copy of the Core Rulebook. It keeps the spirit of 3.5 and 3.0 going very well, as well as updating the bad parts of the game.
etceteraing 2 years ago 2
Is pathfinder set in a world or can you make or own?
89witchhunter 2 years ago
The core rules are setting neutral, so they fit into anything you want. There is an excellent Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting, but it's not necessary to play the game. The only thing taken from Chronicles are the names of the deities, but those are easily modified should you choose to. If you want to create your own world, or use something older like the 3E Forgotten Realms, go for it.
Wintersome 2 years ago
OK that's great, I'm glad they made it as open as d&d, but I have one more question. Is there a monster manual?
89witchhunter 2 years ago
Yes, they released it a while ago. It's called the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary. A very good book, complete with guides to adjust the existing monsters and creating all kinds of monstrous player characters. There are templates too, like 3E.
Wintersome 2 years ago
@89witchhunter In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, my group has actually preferred homebrew campaign settings. As far as I've seen, Pathinder is much easier to do that with. They've simplified and steamlined a lot of tedious rules, but there's still complex stuff for those who like tuning their worlds.
The Pathfinder Campaign Setting book has its own world as wel, premade. I want that one too. :)
etceteraing 2 years ago
I did like 4th ed but now I'm back into 3.5, but that out so I'm going to pathfinder. It looks bad ass!
89witchhunter 2 years ago