4e is the system I cut my teeth on. I rely on the CB to create my characters, I know my way around the forums here, and i'm comfortable with the gameplay. I am interested in broadening my horizons, and trying different games... I just have a lot of reservations.
My biggest one is Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Line...)
I don't like playing spellcasters; I prefere melee combat. I doesn't matter to me that i'll be better early on, I don't want to get to the late levels and be the guy in the corner bonking monsters with my wimpy weapon, while the casters are nuking things left and right as total gods of wars. 4E might not be perfect, but I love that the classes are all balanced, and everybody has a chance to shine.
Is the imbalance of classes in Pathfinder as bad as others make it out to be? Is there any advice that any gamers that have played both systems can give me to help ease the transition?
Thanks,
PM
Caveat: I never went past lvl 13 in 3.X. And I haven't played pathfinder. But I understand they fixed some of the more broken aspects.
It's been my experience that it really depends on the group. If you have a player with high system mastery and a mind for it then they can push the envelope pretty far as a caster class. If your group consists of more down to earth players that are there to enjoy each others company and a good game then you really shouldn't see any problems.
A lot of 4e players here - myself included - played 3e or variations thereof for long enough that we burned out on it. I'm glad people are still enjoying the game, but for me and for my group, we'd largely moved away from 3.5 before 4e came out. I moved away because of specific issues involving prep time and spellcasting; others moved away for similar reasons.
When you approach it, try to do it fresh - I know I had a blast with 3.x for many years before it stopped working for me. If your DM is set on this, and you value sticking with your group, just relax and try to enjoy it for what it is. You might just have a blast!
-O
When you approach it, try to do it fresh - I know I had a blast with 3.x for many years before it stopped working for me. If your DM is set on this, and you value sticking with your group, just relax and try to enjoy it for what it is. You might just have a blast!
-O
I would give Pathfinder a chance in a heartbeat if it was something other than a 3.5 rehash. I want to add another fantasy RPG to my library... I'm not sure where to look. Maybe Warhammer...
Caveat: I never went past lvl 13 in 3.X. And I haven't played pathfinder. But I understand they fixed some of the more broken aspects.
It's been my experience that it really depends on the group. If you have a player with high system mastery and a mind for it then they can push the envelope pretty far as a caster class. If your group consists of more down to earth players that are there to enjoy each others company and a good game then you really shouldn't see any problems.
The group is heavy with optimizers, and several have played older editions. I honestlt don't know how it will go.
As with any new RPG, my best advice is to approach it with an open mind. Every game has strengths and every game has weaknesses. A great DM will run a game towards its strengths and against its weaknesses, and a great player will do the same.
A lot of 4e players here - myself included - played 3e or variations thereof for long enough that we burned out on it. I'm glad people are still enjoying the game, but for me and for my group, we'd largely moved away from 3.5 before 4e came out. I moved away because of specific issues involving prep time and spellcasting; others moved away for similar reasons.
When you approach it, try to do it fresh - I know I had a blast with 3.x for many years before it stopped working for me. If your DM is set on this, and you value sticking with your group, just relax and try to enjoy it for what it is. You might just have a blast!
-O
I difinitely want to give it a go. Having only discovered the joys of RPG's I feel I have a lot to learn. I would just be more comfortable with a one-shot, or a short one to two month game. Investing myself in a campaign that might last a year or more is what has me leary.
With that said, it's distinctly possible that you will never see it bear out in play; I never did personally. PF is a system that strongly rewards system mastery, so much will depend on your group's collective character-building aims and skills.
Also, at most playable levels, the ability gulf is more notable outside of combat than in. Spell-casting is open-ended enough to cause campaign damage if your DM isn't ready for it...
Caveat: I never went past lvl 13 in 3.X. And I haven't played pathfinder. But I understand they fixed some of the more broken aspects.
It's been my experience that it really depends on the group. If you have a player with high system mastery and a mind for it then they can push the envelope pretty far as a caster class. If your group consists of more down to earth players that are there to enjoy each others company and a good game then you really shouldn't see any problems.
The group is heavy with optimizers, and several have played older editions. I honestlt don't know how it will go.
That isn't a good sign, especially for somebody who wants to play a melee character.
In PF(continued from 3.5E) melee characters have much less opportunity to optimize, and a vastly lower ceiling. If you are going to play at higher levels(10+) for an extended period of time, most melee characters will be well below par in a party with optimized casters.
THey did add alot of new feats for non spellcasters to use and the PF fighter is reasonably brutal athough lacking in skills and defenses a bit. At higher levels the spellcasers are still better but it depends on the houserules used and the type of group your party plays with. Its not as balanced as 4th ed and is ass backwards in parts but overall it is a good system IMHO. If I wasn't playing 4th ed I would be playing PF put it that way.
Disjunction for example was rarely used in 3.5 as it permanently nuked around 50-95% of all magic items as loot. In PF it only turns them off for a bit so the wizard can nuke away and collect the loot afterwards. Thats at level 17 though and the game only goes to level 20. It probably won't matter as the game will probably collapse around level 13 or so which is an improvement over 3.5's lvl 7-9. If you don't hit the higher levels PF is fine and spellcasters suck for the 1st few levels.
Well, I'm biased: I have not played Pathfinder, and I only paged through the book. However, there's some "review" out there about how 4e sucks that the "reviewer" based on paging through the book, so.....
Anyways. Again, I have not played Pathfinder, only paged through the book, but I have run and played 3.0 and 3.5. To me, Pathfinder changed very little; sure, they streamlined the Grapple/Disarm/other stuff like that, but they did not touch the spells at all, so spellcasters are still more powerful than non-casters.
All I can say is, hey, try it, you may like it. I know for a fact that I would, and will, never play Pathfinder or 3.x again. The only variant I might try is Monte Cook's Iron Heroes.
I would give Pathfinder a chance in a heartbeat if it was something other than a 3.5 rehash. I want to add another fantasy RPG to my library... I'm not sure where to look. Maybe Warhammer...
Warhammer FRP 2e was one of the main games my group was playing at the tail end of 3.5. It's a blast, but it requires a certain kind of old-school mindset. I haven't tried WFRP 3e; my group is bigger than it assumes, and the sticker shock killed me.
My interest in Pathfinder is basically nil right now. I do have the PDF of the core rules, and it didn't do enough for me. It's fine - I know I'm not their target audience.
If I wanted to run 3.5, I still have a huge collection I keep meaning to sell off one of these days. If I were to run an earlier edition of D&D, I'd be all about AD&D 1e right now. I had a blast with it during the short campaign I ran two years back. (EDIT: I would run Arcana Evolved again, though. I'd keep it at low levels, because the spellcaster/non-spellcaster disparity in AE is about twice as bad as it is under default 3.5. Maybe three times as bad.)The big thing is that D&D and Pathfinder have kind of eaten the entire Fantasy RPG market. Maybe look into Dragon Age or Burning Wheel.
-O
Main thing to remember is that this board is full of people who purposefully chose to play 4e instead of pathfinder. To the degree that many have never played pathfinder, many only played 3.5 (and don't know everything pathfinder changed), some have played and given both a fair share, and some just venomously hate pathfinder and will even spread untruths in order to put it down. With that said.
Don't be afraid to play pathfinder. With the correct players and the correct DM, the discrepency of power many experience at higher levels of the game will never actually be that relevant. I've played in several games, and honestly I never saw the discrepency. Part of this was because the players of the casters saw it much more powerful ingame to not take damage spells..but instead buffing and control. Why do some piddly dice worth of damage..when you can add that much damage to a single characters attack roll..let him attack 3 or 4 times in a turn..increase his chance to hit, give the party mobility, then make the enemy sit there and take it.
You're bigger worry, honestly, should be making your character the way you want them. The system is very different from 4e..where your choices are laid out neat, plain and simple. When your variety comes from choosing the powers availble to a single class. Pathfinder? Variety comes from feats..and from multiclassing. You can replicate most powers in 4e while playing pathfinder, the trick is that you need to actually build those powers by choosing options..instead of just choosing a power directly.
The group is heavy with optimizers, and several have played older editions. I honestlt don't know how it will go.
I don't mean to come off like an ass, but this comment might. Forwarned. A lot of people who say they are super optimizers in 3.5 are not good at it. Things like "I play a blaster wizard who can ___," "I have a monk with an AC of __," "My fighter ___" are all warning signs.
What I mean with that is, even if they say they are hardcore optimizers, there is a good chance they aren't. Thats to your advantage in wanting to play a melee dude.
Two suggestions for you.
- Play a TOB Class. Swordsage is any combo of rogue/monk/ninja you want and is fairly powerful and easy to build. Warblade is what a fighter should have been. Crusader is a good paladin substitute.
- Play a cleric. I know you don't like casters, but clerics make some of the best mele guys in 3.5. Think of their spells as powers, and snag feats like DMM persist, extend, and quicken.
Pathfinder changes some numbers around, but is basically the same as 3.5. Especially if your group allows 3.5 splatbooks in the pathfinder game.
I'm fairly new to roleplaying, only playing for the past year. My Wife and I are in 2 games, both 4E. One of our DM's hates the system and is planning to switch us over to Pathfinder as soon as our current campaign is completed. We're going to level 30, (we're at 10th right now), so it will be awhile, but i'm already nervous.
4e is the system I cut my teeth on. I rely on the CB to create my characters, I know my way around the forums here, and i'm comfortable with the gameplay. I am interested in broadening my horizons, and trying different games... I just have a lot of reservations.
My biggest one is Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Line...)
I don't like playing spellcasters; I prefere melee combat. I doesn't matter to me that i'll be better early on, I don't want to get to the late levels and be the guy in the corner bonking monsters with my wimpy weapon, while the casters are nuking things left and right as total gods of wars. 4E might not be perfect, but I love that the classes are all balanced, and everybody has a chance to shine.
Is the imbalance of classes in Pathfinder as bad as others make it out to be? Is there any advice that any gamers that have played both systems can give me to help ease the transition?
Thanks,
PM
I've played 4E (pre-Essentials) at heroic and paragon tiers. I've played PF up to around level 13.
The in-balance "problem" for PF is overrated if you have a GM who at least tries to work with his or her players (ie you guys are friends). PF is more about creating the character you see in your mind's eye and working with the GM and other players to then add that character into a group of other adventurers and the larger world.
If the game is simply going to be a numbers game and all about "winning" at tactical combat than PF is not the best choice in RPGs. It would be like playing chess and complaining that you can't bring luck to bear in the game.
My advice is to listen to what type of adventures and world your GM is running. Talk to your fellow players about what they want to play and why. Then come up with some martial ideas of your own. In the Core Rulebook you could try barbarian, fighter, and/or rogue with no magic involved whatsoever. Tie your character into the world the GM is making and the other players' characters and you should have a great time.
A lot will depend on what setting your GM makes or runs and the rules he or she allows. Once you know that, if you post that info here along with some of your character ideas, I would glad to give some specific ideas. A campaign with the Core Rulebook will be quite different from one that also allows the Advanced Player's Guide for example. A campaign set in a desert will be quite different from a campaign set in the frozen north. Some more info will help you get ready.
I've played 4E (pre-Essentials) at heroic and paragon tiers. I've played PF up to around level 13.
The in-balance "problem" for PF is overrated if you have a GM who at least tries to work with his or her players (ie you guys are friends). PF is more about creating the character you see in your mind's eye and working with the GM and other players to then add that character into a group of other adventurers and the larger world.
I think that the "dirty little secret" of this Pathfinder-vs.-4E debate is that Pathfinder and 4E are far more similar than they are different.
The key to fun for everyone in both games is to make sure that everyone has the same expectations for the game - once this is accomplished, navigating the rules of each game is easy, since you just play the way you want to play.
This thread again, mmm?
Well, I'm biased: I have not played Pathfinder, and I only paged through the book. However, there's some "review" out there about how 4e sucks that the "reviewer" based on paging through the book, so.....
Anyways. Again, I have not played Pathfinder, only paged through the book, but I have run and played 3.0 and 3.5. To me, Pathfinder changed very little; sure, they streamlined the Grapple/Disarm/other stuff like that, but they did not touch the spells at all, so spellcasters are still more powerful than non-casters.
All I can say is, hey, try it, you may like it. I know for a fact that I would, and will, never play Pathfinder or 3.x again. The only variant I might try is Monte Cook's Iron Heroes.
Iron Heroes was a great! It's a shame it isn't more popular. It's unfortunate that Pathfinder just rehashed the 3.5e system rather than attempting to do something unique like Iron Heroes.
Kravell, you just expressed just about everything that is wrong with PF/3.5E.
Ok, I genuinely don't see anything bad in what Kravell said.
Like I said, I've played both 4e and Pathfinder. I like both. For a long time, I've been part of a really good Pathfinder group, we get on really well. In the same vein, much as I like 4e, I've not been part of a good 4e group for ages, and the Pathfinder group I'm in won't play 4e, so my experiences of 4e are bad.
I know people will insist that Pathfinder is broken badwrongfun and no matter how good my experiences are... Likewise, I'm sure there are people who will say that my bad experiences of 4e don't make 4e bad. Quite possibly in the same breath.
Guess what. Any game is only as good or as bad as your last session. Any game is only as good or bad as the people you play it with.
And yes, I can highly recommend World of Darkness if you're looking for something different. Or does the fact that I like Pathfinder make my opinion worthless?
Personally, I'd say that if you want to broaden your RPG horizons beyond 4e try something that isn't really D&D-ish, something that isn't. Something like Deadlands (Old West Horror) or Shadowrun (a combo fantasy/syberpunk game) or a White Wolf game (Vampires, werewolves, etc as PCs in a modern setting). Lots of good choices out there, and it's nice to see other settings and systems other than D&D.
One of my DM's did a one- shot of deadlands when the rest of our group was out of town. I really enjoyed it. The choice of playing Pathfinder is the DM's. I would love to try a selection of RPG's...i'm just uneasy being tied down to anything, especialy with the noted class emballance
Personally I'm going to give you a different view on things.
Main thing to remember is that this board is full of people who purposefully chose to play 4e instead of pathfinder. To the degree that many have never played pathfinder, many only played 3.5 (and don't know everything pathfinder changed), some have played and given both a fair share, and some just venomously hate pathfinder and will even spread untruths in order to put it down. With that said.
Don't be afraid to play pathfinder. With the correct players and the correct DM, the discrepency of power many experience at higher levels of the game will never actually be that relevant. I've played in several games, and honestly I never saw the discrepency. Part of this was because the players of the casters saw it much more powerful ingame to not take damage spells..but instead buffing and control. Why do some piddly dice worth of damage..when you can add that much damage to a single characters attack roll..let him attack 3 or 4 times in a turn..increase his chance to hit, give the party mobility, then make the enemy sit there and take it.
You're bigger worry, honestly, should be making your character the way you want them. The system is very different from 4e..where your choices are laid out neat, plain and simple. When your variety comes from choosing the powers availble to a single class. Pathfinder? Variety comes from feats..and from multiclassing. You can replicate most powers in 4e while playing pathfinder, the trick is that you need to actually build those powers by choosing options..instead of just choosing a power directly.
Charcater creation is another large concern for me. I'm used to the CB, the Character forums on these boards, and my level of mastery with 4E. I've had a hard time finding similar resources on the Pathfinder side. Could you recommend where I should look for Pathfinder help?
The group is heavy with optimizers, and several have played older editions. I honestlt don't know how it will go.
I don't mean to come off like an ass, but this comment might. Forwarned. A lot of people who say they are super optimizers in 3.5 are not good at it. Things like "I play a blaster wizard who can ___," "I have a monk with an AC of __," "My fighter ___" are all warning signs.
What I mean with that is, even if they say they are hardcore optimizers, there is a good chance they aren't. Thats to your advantage in wanting to play a melee dude.
Two suggestions for you.
- Play a TOB Class. Swordsage is any combo of rogue/monk/ninja you want and is fairly powerful and easy to build. Warblade is what a fighter should have been. Crusader is a good paladin substitute.
- Play a cleric. I know you don't like casters, but clerics make some of the best mele guys in 3.5. Think of their spells as powers, and snag feats like DMM persist, extend, and quicken.
Pathfinder changes some numbers around, but is basically the same as 3.5. Especially if your group allows 3.5 splatbooks in the pathfinder game.
Nope, no ass. This is very helpful. 1.) would be great...if my DM will allow it...and I can find TOB. Otherwise I'll give serious consideration to the CLeric.
I'm fairly new to roleplaying, only playing for the past year. My Wife and I are in 2 games, both 4E. One of our DM's hates the system and is planning to switch us over to Pathfinder as soon as our current campaign is completed. We're going to level 30, (we're at 10th right now), so it will be awhile, but i'm already nervous.
4e is the system I cut my teeth on. I rely on the CB to create my characters, I know my way around the forums here, and i'm comfortable with the gameplay. I am interested in broadening my horizons, and trying different games... I just have a lot of reservations.
My biggest one is Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Line...)
I don't like playing spellcasters; I prefere melee combat. I doesn't matter to me that i'll be better early on, I don't want to get to the late levels and be the guy in the corner bonking monsters with my wimpy weapon, while the casters are nuking things left and right as total gods of wars. 4E might not be perfect, but I love that the classes are all balanced, and everybody has a chance to shine.
Is the imbalance of classes in Pathfinder as bad as others make it out to be? Is there any advice that any gamers that have played both systems can give me to help ease the transition?
Thanks,
PM
I've played 4E (pre-Essentials) at heroic and paragon tiers. I've played PF up to around level 13.
The in-balance "problem" for PF is overrated if you have a GM who at least tries to work with his or her players (ie you guys are friends). PF is more about creating the character you see in your mind's eye and working with the GM and other players to then add that character into a group of other adventurers and the larger world.
If the game is simply going to be a numbers game and all about "winning" at tactical combat than PF is not the best choice in RPGs. It would be like playing chess and complaining that you can't bring luck to bear in the game.
My advice is to listen to what type of adventures and world your GM is running. Talk to your fellow players about what they want to play and why. Then come up with some martial ideas of your own. In the Core Rulebook you could try barbarian, fighter, and/or rogue with no magic involved whatsoever. Tie your character into the world the GM is making and the other players' characters and you should have a great time.
A lot will depend on what setting your GM makes or runs and the rules he or she allows. Once you know that, if you post that info here along with some of your character ideas, I would glad to give some specific ideas. A campaign with the Core Rulebook will be quite different from one that also allows the Advanced Player's Guide for example. A campaign set in a desert will be quite different from a campaign set in the frozen north. Some more info will help you get ready.
Talking with my DM will be my next step. I wanted to get some feedback whether my concerns were valid first. Now I need express them to him and see if they can be negated to both of our satisfaction.
The in-balance "problem" for PF is overrated if you have a GM who at least tries to work with his or her players (ie you guys are friends). PF is more about creating the character you see in your mind's eye and working with the GM and other players to then add that character into a group of other adventurers and the larger world.
How is that different than 4e? I mean, isn't that the whole purpose of being able to refluff the powers in 4e to make the character you want? Shoot, isn't that purpose of EVERY Roleplaying game?
Charcater creation is another large concern for me. I'm used to the CB, the Character forums on these boards, and my level of mastery with 4E. I've had a hard time finding similar resources on the Pathfinder side. Could you recommend where I should look for Pathfinder help?
Go here and post your questions:
paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPubli...
The optimizers over on the Paizo boards can really help you out.
For more specific rule questions, check out:
paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPubli...
Kravell, you just expressed just about everything that is wrong with PF/3.5E.
As well as everything that is so right with PF.
That's why it is great to have multiple RPGs to choose from and play. One gamer's feature is another gamer's bug.
How is that different than 4e?
It isn't different from 4E. The poster was asking if balance is a problem in PF and it isn't anymore than it is in 4E. It depends on the group more than anything else.
I mean, isn't that the whole purpose of being able to refluff the powers in 4e to make the character you want?
I'm not sure about this second question. I don't recall refluffing from my PH but I think a lot of gamers do it. If it works, go for it!
Shoot, isn't that purpose of EVERY Roleplaying game?
Is that the purpose of every RPG? Ultimately, maybe, but it may not be the prime purpose. Some RPGs are written for different reasons. The users of the RPG may have that as the ultimate purpose, but the designer may or may not.
Charcater creation is another large concern for me. I'm used to the CB, the Character forums on these boards, and my level of mastery with 4E. I've had a hard time finding similar resources on the Pathfinder side. Could you recommend where I should look for Pathfinder help?
Go here and post your questions:
paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPubli...
The optimizers over on the Paizo boards can really help you out.
For more specific rule questions, check out:
paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPubli...
Awesome! Many thanks!
Awesome! Many thanks!
You're welcome! Hope you have fun.
That's why it is great to have multiple RPGs to choose from and play. One gamer's feature is another gamer's bug.
Indeed.
When I'm running 1e, for example, I don't care about the same stuff I do when I'm running 4e.
-O
That's why it is great to have multiple RPGs to choose from and play. One gamer's feature is another gamer's bug.
Indeed.
When I'm running 1e, for example, I don't care about the same stuff I do when I'm running 4e.
-O
Everything I cared about in 1e is why I like 4e and will never play earlier versions ever again.
Don't dump Constitution; it affects HP much more so than 4e. Dexterity is also almost as universally important, modifying two defenses, ranged attacks, and initiative checks.
Don't multiclass, especially as a beginner.
Stay away from the Monk & Rogue. They're not so good at....whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. Fighter, Barbarian & Ranger are okay (just don't expect your Ranger's Favored Enemy to pop up often). Paladins are tippy-top awesome in this game, especially in a typical good vs evil campaign.
You might be used to low-level characters taking abuse and continuing on in 4e; not so much in Pathfinder. For example, a theoretical Barbarian who maxed out his Con and took Toughness will start the game with 20 Hit Points. He can take a few hits, but one good Power Attack from an orc could still wreck his day.
Don't go into all doom-and-gloom. It might end up being fun. If you like the DM's style, and he enjoys the game he's running, things should work out fine.
Basically the melee types just make basic melee attacks and they have the option of taking various feats that kind of simulate the 4th ed powers as they can knock you prone and the like. The basica attacks are laot more btrutal than the 4th ed equivilents and in effect they are really a at will encounter power in 4th ed terms. A level one fighter type for example can easily do 2d6+6 or more damage often to multiple targets. The PF fighter is also quite tough but lacks defenses and skills which become apparent in the higher levels against optimised spell DCs. Most classes also lack feats compared to 4th ed equivilents but they get various class abilities instead. Alot of the problem feats from 3.5 do no exist in Pathfinder so there is no divine metamagic or natural spell which were big offenders in 3.5. Most of the broken spells have been semi fixed but often with only the addition of a saving throw which is better than nothing but some of them need to be banned to make the system work IMHO.
Often it is alo more efficient to buff the rest of your party and to save your dailes as thats what spells are in PF rules. A wizard can cast haste and let the others deal with XYZ and they will kill it fast for a minimal expenditure of resources. Alot of wizard players like going nova though and depleting their spells which more or less requires the party to head back to town if the spelkl casters are low on spells which can make encounter design difficult. 5 minute workday can exist in both editions.
I would almost ignore everything Garthanos has to say as he is very biased against PF and 3.5.
Well yeh that is partially true, but its not like you cant read the SRD or any of its secret Admittedly the most in depth analysis is only really something you can verify for yourself in play.
Actually I enjoy a combination of both. I don't like it when a DM just says "yeah you do that". To me I feel cheated. To me the fun is actually coming up with the whole complex idea, not actually succeeding.
Ah, I gotcha. You're a big fan of the DM's Best Friend (+2 bonus) as well, right? Describe the action, try to make it cool enough for the bonus, roll dice, roll out. Right?
(Not trying to ambush you anyways; that's pretty much how I run my games.)
Actually I enjoy a combination of both. I don't like it when a DM just says "yeah you do that". To me I feel cheated. To me the fun is actually coming up with the whole complex idea, not actually succeeding.
Ah, I gotcha. You're a big fan of the DM's Best Friend (+2 bonus) as well, right? Describe the action, try to make it cool enough for the bonus, roll dice, roll out. Right?
(Not trying to ambush you anyways; that's pretty much how I run my games.)
Well it also depends on the skill being used. In our games a Wizard cannot create magic arms and armor without a fellow PC having the appropriate Craft skills to help in creating those certain items.
Well it also depends on the skill being used.
Sine que non.
In our games a Wizard cannot create magic arms and armor without a fellow PC having the appropriate Craft skills to help in creating those certain items.
Now that is a house rule I can get behind. If the caster has the requisite craft skill, though, does he need the fellow PC? Or is enchanting always a 2 person process?
Well it also depends on the skill being used.
Sine que non.
In our games a Wizard cannot create magic arms and armor without a fellow PC having the appropriate Craft skills to help in creating those certain items.
Now that is a house rule I can get behind. If the caster has the requisite craft skill, though, does he need the fellow PC? Or is enchanting always a 2 person process?
If a spellcaster has the appropriate craft skill then yes he could but only up to a certain level. We got together and created a chart and higher level items can only be created by two or more people working together.
If a spellcaster has the appropriate craft skill then yes he could but only up to a certain level. We got together and created a chart and higher level items can only be created by two or more people working together.
Yeah, I can totally see that. Its a good idea, Xun.
Oh! And to expand on that, very power artifacts could require more/specific people! Holy Avengers need angels hanging out or something.....
OP: What characters are your optimizer players running in 4ed? It may help us understand what they would run in PF.
We have a psion, a arcanist, a rogue and a cleric
Hm. Not the most broken classes in 4ed. The classes are good, and some Paragon Path love can make them a lot better. I'm thinking that these guys like the classes and choose the best powers/feats for that class instead of finding the best powers/feats out there and finding the right class for them.
If they carry this philosophy over to PF, the success of the party will depend on if enough of your party want to play spellcasters. If they want to be a Wizard, Cleric, and Psion in 3ed, they'll do very well if they choose the right spells.
One big difference between 4ed and PF is that buff effects are more desirable in 4ed than PF. With 4ed's dearth of instant-kill effects before Epic, co-ordinating your powers makes battles end quicker. In PF, kill spells are just so much more useful than buff spells that co-ordinating with your allies is basically "watch out for my fireball" and "save your spell, this encounter is on me!"
OP: Are your spellcasters team-players or solo acts?If they're solo acts, they'll do better in PF.
OP: What characters are your optimizer players running in 4ed? It may help us understand what they would run in PF.
We have a psion, a arcanist, a rogue and a cleric
Hm. Not the most broken classes in 4ed. The classes are good, and some Paragon Path love can make them a lot better. I'm thinking that these guys like the classes and choose the best powers/feats for that class instead of finding the best powers/feats out there and finding the right class for them.
If they carry this philosophy over to PF, the success of the party will depend on if enough of your party want to play spellcasters. If they want to be a Wizard, Cleric, and Psion in 3ed, they'll do very well if they choose the right spells.
One big difference between 4ed and PF is that buff effects are more desirable in 4ed than PF. With 4ed's dearth of instant-kill effects before Epic, co-ordinating your powers makes battles end quicker. In PF, kill spells are just so much more useful than buff spells that co-ordinating with your allies is basically "watch out for my fireball" and "save your spell, this encounter is on me!"
OP: Are your spellcasters team-players or solo acts?If they're solo acts, they'll do better in PF.
Actually if they are team player's then they would blow Pathfinder out of the water. When you are actually in a group that applies teamwork in Pathfinder you can do wonders.
Edit: WARNING OP!! You are getting horrid advice from this poster. Please go and read up on Pathfinder and I would advise Alterboy here to do the same.
He doesn't like 4E because he feels it's too simplified, and combat focused. He told me that the Linear Warrior/Quadratic Wizard issue is only a problem if the DM allows it to be, and that their are a lot of ways to work around it.
I plan to give it a try. I will be a good way to learn about D&D's past and learn more about the hobby. I will still have the 4E game I will be DMing, and my wife plans to start a 4E game of her own soon, so I will still get my 4E fix.
I don't know if this will get read being banished to the far reaches of the forums, but I really want to thank all of you who were helpful despite all the noise from those who wanted to turn it into an edition war. You've given me a lot to think about.
I'm fairly new to roleplaying, only playing for the past year. My Wife and I are in 2 games, both 4E. One of our DM's hates the system and is planning to switch us over to Pathfinder as soon as our current campaign is completed. We're going to level 30, (we're at 10th right now), so it will be awhile, but i'm already nervous.
4e is the system I cut my teeth on. I rely on the CB to create my characters, I know my way around the forums here, and i'm comfortable with the gameplay. I am interested in broadening my horizons, and trying different games... I just have a lot of reservations.
My biggest one is Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Line...)
I don't like playing spellcasters; I prefere melee combat. I doesn't matter to me that i'll be better early on, I don't want to get to the late levels and be the guy in the corner bonking monsters with my wimpy weapon, while the casters are nuking things left and right as total gods of wars. 4E might not be perfect, but I love that the classes are all balanced, and everybody has a chance to shine.
Is the imbalance of classes in Pathfinder as bad as others make it out to be? Is there any advice that any gamers that have played both systems can give me to help ease the transition?
Thanks,
PM
Just wanted to chime in...
Well Pathfinder is interesting. If you're group is optomizing than things can get very ugly, but they can also be a lot of fun.
I would suggest a couple things:
1.) If you are intent on playing a melee fighter, buy ultimate combat, the new book. I say this because there will be plenty of copies of the core and Advanced players guide out there. However, in my experience with pathfinder, you will find the gunslinger class to be brutal, and overall the New book is geared to power up fighters and melee combatants. It's not a must, but it will probably help, a lot.
2.) If you're not wanting spend the cash on that (understandable) and some one has the Ultimate magic book, I'd highly recomend a Magus. It is a Melee combat class with a small amount of spell casting. This will give you a number of options in play over the course of a campaign, and yu will still be able to get in and smash things.
3.) Talk to the group. If you don't want to play a spell caster, stand by your guns, but solicit advice. they can help. So can more dedicated Pathfinder boards.
4.) Have fun. Really. When you play any RPG that's the name of the game. PAthfinder is a tricky beast at times, but with a good group and creative GM it's no worse or better than any 4e game. Some people just need to structure of PF vs 4e, and that's jsut that.
Now if you find that you're not having fun, examine what is uncomfortable about the experience. the more you know, the more you can vocalize, the more the GM can adapt to help you out.
This is a past time, a game. Don't fret, adn don't sweat. you're the player. Just roll with the punches and I hope you enjoy it.
I talked with my DM about the upcoming change over, and got some good feedback.
He doesn't like 4E because he feels it's too simplified, and combat focused. He told me that the Linear Warrior/Quadratic Wizard issue is only a problem if the DM allows it to be, and that their are a lot of ways to work around it.
I plan to give it a try. I will be a good way to learn about D&D's past and learn more about the hobby. I will still have the 4E game I will be DMing, and my wife plans to start a 4E game of her own soon, so I will still get my 4E fix.
I don't know if this will get read being banished to the far reaches of the forums, but I really want to thank all of you who were helpful despite all the noise from those who wanted to turn it into an edition war. You've given me a lot to think about.
It is amazing what talking with a game runner will do for your comfort levels. Have fun.