Poll: D&D or Pathfinder?

[Bara_no_Hime]

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

do you know what happens to those players?
Strike 1
Strike 2
Save or die

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm far too nice for that.

Besides, the issue (with the group I had this problem with) was half of the gaming group basically getting huffy and threatening to leave (screwing the party over) if I didn't cave. And, while I would have loved to say "sure, fine" - one of the players who wasn't complaining was the sig-other of one of the complainers, so I would have lost her too. Leaving me with two players.

I don't run for that particular group anymore. Instead I play in their games, and make their lives as miserable as possible. ^^ I'm a passive aggressive ***** that way. ^^

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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

If you play low-optimization yes, well optimized clerics don't use heal spells. Although your right that short adventuring days are one of the bad things about even mildly optimized D&D.

Only if "well optimized" means "party unfriendly". The cleric's job is to heal.

That said, there's no reason a cleric can't be awesome and a good healer in 3.5 - just can't use many offensive spells.

I am very "cooperative play" philosophy - I realize there are more competitive players out there (the kind who steal gold from other players) but I hate that attitude. When I play a character who's supposed to fill a niche, I damn well fill that niche.

I realize it's not the only way to play - but it's the only way I play.

Edit: Also, most of my PCs have been able to kick the ass of characters built on "Optimization Boards". I'm just sayin.

 

[Electrohydra]

If used correctly, you shouldn't even have to use rule 0 after character creation (make sure your party is balanced then, and you shouldn't have to many problems). Also make sure they know you use rule 0 BEFORE the game starts, and that broken stuff will not work, or work differently. And that they can pass their builds by you if they want to know in advance if what they plan to take will work.

And if they say "Rules as Written *whine whine*" then either laugh in their face and show the rule in DMG that says the DM can use rule 0, or laugh in their face and make them fight Pun-Pun.

Okay, maybe not laugh in their face, but a good rule to keep in mind for players who break the game is "Anything you can do, the NPCs can do".

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Pathfinder is D&D. It's just a tightened up, better-designed 3.5 edition. In fact, it started out as a series of articles in Dragon and Dungeon magazines. It just got its own series of books after it became clear that WotC was abandoning 3.5 in its entirity and Paizo decided they wanted to keep publishing under the OGL.

That said, having played both, I much prefer Pathfinder to 4th edition. The streamlining of 4th edition is nice, it's certainly easier for new players to grasp, and in general the combat just plays better, but the character building and non-combat mechanics seem to have suffered substantially. It's also wedded much more closely to a basic idea of what the world should be like and what structure adventures should take than previous editions so far as I can tell. This is a very good thing if you happen to like that world concept and adventure structure, but I liked the versatility of 3.5 even if it meant dealing with such a baroque rule system.

Truthfully though, I can really see people going either way depending on what they want out of D&D. I don't think either is objectively better.

(Addressing other OP point: I didn't get into pnp from electronic RPGs, but rather from an old first edition box given to a friend from an uncle when I was younger.)

Edit: Also, the classes in 4th edition really aren't all the same, they just feel that way thanks to (a) martial characters not being completely overshadowed by spellcasters after about the third level and (b) all of the powers sharing the same visual formatting. If you look, a lot of the powers function almost completely identically to their 3.5 class feature counterparts, preserving many of the exact same differences between the class mechanics.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

If used correctly, you shouldn't even have to use rule 0 after character creation (make sure your party is balanced then, and you shouldn't have to many problems). Also make sure they know you use rule 0 BEFORE the game starts, and that broken stuff will not work, or work differently. And that they can pass their builds by you if they want to know in advance if what they plan to take will work.

And if they say "Rules as Written *whine whine*" then either laugh in their face and show the rule in DMG that says the DM can use rule 0, or laugh in their face and make them fight Pun-Pun.

Okay, maybe not laugh in their face, but a good rule to keep in mind for players who break the game is "Anything you can do, the NPCs can do".

Yeah... tried that. I decided to control PrCs by requiring characters to find them during RP. That way, I could hand players a PrC I felt comfortable using in my game.

A player walked in, handed me a piece of paper, and said "I need an NPC trainer of **PrC 1** and **PrC 2** by levels 7 and 13." On the paper was every level from 1st to 20th, as copied from an optimization board. This was at character creation.

My urge to kill rose very quickly in that moment.

ANYWAY - this is a very silly conversation to be having, since it has nothing to do with 4e or Pathfinder (both of which I prefer to 3.5 and that group of players).

 

[Thurston]

Tried a bit of Pathfinder, and describing it as D&D 3.75 is pretty accurate.

I can have fun in D&D 3.5, Pathfinder or D&D 4. It's more a matter of the players and the DM.

One of the reasons I like 4th, is that if you fight smart, it's a significant advantage.

As for the "Level 0" characters, maybe time for a player revolt. Fun trumps "realism".

 

[Electrohydra]

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

If you play low-optimization yes, well optimized clerics don't use heal spells. Although your right that short adventuring days are one of the bad things about even mildly optimized D&D.

Only if "well optimized" means "party unfriendly". The cleric's job is to heal.

That said, there's no reason a cleric can't be awesome and a good healer in 3.5 - just can't use many offensive spells.

I am very "cooperative play" philosophy - I realize there are more competitive players out there (the kind who steal gold from other players) but I hate that attitude. When I play a character who's supposed to fill a niche, I damn well fill that niche.

I realize it's not the only way to play - but it's the only way I play.

Edit: Also, most of my PCs have been able to kick the ass of characters built on "Optimization Boards". I'm just sayin.

I don't think a cleric that doesn't heal is party unfriendly. The thing is, you have to fit with your group, so if they are all sword and board fighters and you go the Divine metamagic: Persit way, then you are being party unfriendly. But if you go healbot and are playing with an Ubercharger, incantatrix and DMMersit cleric, then you are being a drag on the party and are as much party unfriendly.

So yeah, your job is whatever you decide it is, and that's not already taken by someone else (unless he/she agrees of course. A party of rogues is always fun to play). You can be a cleric without healing (Potions and wands can do that), or you can be a cleric that heals if you want, but then don't say you're not having fun, you're playing what you chose.

 

[Shikua]

Pathfinder is faar superiour in my opinion. And people arguing that Rule 0 with 3.5 make it better than Pathfinder forget that Rule 0 also applies to Pathfinder.

On the broken rules side, anyone remember the inviso-rogue trick? Have a Rogue carry a tower shield, duck behind it for partial concealment, the Rogue and all his gear disappear, including the tower shield.

 

[Nerdstar]

3.5 D&D!!! i grew up on 3ed edition and when 3.5 happened it wasn't any big deal then they shat out the abomination that is 4th edition. iv always been a fan of the forgotten realms universe its got its own flavor while still firmly a D&D setting. its a WOW clone with the story and RP aspects striped to the bare minimum.

that said pathfinder is just 3.5 in a different setting, which makes it good in my book but i still perfer to run a 3.5 ed FR game.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Pathfinder. I've heard people call 4e "Dungeons & Warcraft: The Gathering," and am pretty much inclined to agree with that assessment. It feels like an attempt to pull in more electronic gamers.

That said, GURPS is probably an overall better system, if more complex.

 

[Ulvai]

Pathfinder is clearly an improvement over 3.5, rulewise, setting is nice and not overburdened like older, classical settings (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc). And it definitely beats 4e...

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I don't think a cleric that doesn't heal is party unfriendly. The thing is, you have to fit with your group, so if they are all sword and board fighters and you go the Divine metamagic: Persit way, then you are being party unfriendly. But if you go healbot and are playing with an Ubercharger, incantatrix and DMMersit cleric, then you are being a drag on the party and are as much party unfriendly.

So yeah, your job is whatever you decide it is, and that's not already taken by someone else (unless he/she agrees of course. A party of rogues is always fun to play). You can be a cleric without healing (Potions and wands can do that), or you can be a cleric that heals if you want, but then don't say you're not having fun, you're playing what you chose.

Um, why wouldn't a party with a DDM Cleric want a heal cleric to help out? I've seen that happen in parties with two clerics (a healing cleric and a HOLYSHITEVERYTHINGJUSTDIED cleric). It was a really well balanced group actually. That party didn't have a mage... didn't need one.

Anyway, my original point was that in Pathfinder you don't need to choose. You can play the DMM: Persit cleric AND heal with channels. Or, my personal favorite, the Sexy Face w/ Charm specialty cleric of Calistria (or Isis, depending on world) and still channel heal the party during and after combat. That way I rock non-combat situations, I can screw with humanoid enemies, and vs other critters I can heal.

Then again, I love playing the party Face. ^^ Bluff and Diplomacy are my favorite skills.

 

[monstersquad]

Neither. I prefer GURPS.

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

If you prefer to roleplay a game and have fun, not spend all night doing hard math, then you should play GURPS. Almost all the math you'd need is done at character creation. In practice all you do is roll 3d6 under skill. That's it.

Also, as a modular game, you can play GURPS without all the tactical choices and have quite a rules-light game. Or you can add in more options.

GURPS is sleek, lean, fast, and fun with option to add on complexity where you like it. It certainly isn't more complicated than D&D.

Plus, I enjoy that it handles multiple genres well, as well as supporting social as well as combat, and gritty as well as cinematic.

I guess my only exposure to the game was at the hands of very precise, exacting people. But right now I'm doing just fine with Pathfinder.

 

[Nieroshai]

To me, Pathfinder is D&D 3.75. Sure it isn't WotC property, but it plays close enough. I like both, but Pathfinder has some rule changes that makes it easier for me to DM.

 

[drisky]

I'm not big on forth edition so Pathfinder, of coarse to true answer is Shadowrun.

 

[Windcaler]

I started D&D back during 2nd edition then around 2004 or so one of my players convinced me to try 3.0. I wish I had held out for a year because the next year 3.5 was released. I played that for till cancelation of Dungeon and Dragon magazine of which I had been an avid reader for years. Then with the annoucnment of 4.0 I was kind of annoyed, I had gone through the change with 2nd edition I didnt want a brand new system. I wanted an evolution of 3.5. A few months later the alpha to pathfinder was released and I found the Paizo publishing was doing exactly what I wanted.

The killer to D&D for me was when I played it. I wanted to give it a fair shot like I do all RPGs but I hated it. It just wasnt fantasy roleplaying to me so I turned my back from it and started playing pathfinder full time. Pathfinder only got better as Golarian (the setting they use) got more detailed and the new classes and character options came out

Today Im an avid Pathfinder supporter, GM, and when I can find a game player. I wont say its the better/best system because thats a subjective determination but I will say that I think its the best fantasy pen and paper RPG game system I have played to date.

 

[crazyfoxdemon]

As long as its not DnD 4E.. I don't really care..

 

[Aethren]

No idea. They're both expensive as all hell to get into, and I don't know of anyone around here that plays them.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Exactly. I do like the 2E though. And nothing beats the old school AD&D art style. btw.

Tony diTerlizzi is the man.

 

[Mr.Gompers]

I actually like D&D 4th, but then again, I'm extremely new to Tabletop RPGs, just got into it last year when I started reading OOTS, so the streamlining is very nice.