So, Pathfinder fans: why do you love it?

Daz Florp Lebam

Grand Poobah
Validated User
#1
Pretty much that. I'm not looking for anyone to sell me on it, I'm just curious as to why the people that like it like it.

To go a little further, how is it different from and/or why do you think its better than D&D?

I ask because I find it too much like 3E/4E, but this is based on a fairly cursory exposure to PF. I don't think I ever played any D&D 3E, but I've played 4E. I respect the work required to make the balance of powers and feats and combat maneuvers (or whatever they're called) work, I think the way it's built suits a supers game more than what I want in a fantasy game, but in the long run I don't care for it.

So, anyway, why does youse likes its?
 

Blackwingedheaven

Crystal Human
Validated User
#3
I ask because I find it too much like 3E/4E, but this is based on a fairly cursory exposure to PF. I don't think I ever played any D&D 3E, but I've played 4E. I respect the work required to make the balance of powers and feats and combat maneuvers (or whatever they're called) work, I think the way it's built suits a supers game more than what I want in a fantasy game, but in the long run I don't care for it.
It's pretty clear you haven't played any 3E, because it's nothing like 4E. Really, they're not the same game in the slightest. 3E was the game that started the d20 movement, and there are tons of games using the system, including Pathfinder among many others. 4E uses a completely new system that uses occasionally overlapping nomenclature ("feats" and "skills" primarily).

That being said, I like Pathfinder significantly better than either 4E (which I can't stand) and 3E/3.5E (which it's a significant improvement over). Pathfinder is essentially 3.5E with some cleaned up rules and some other tweaks and changes. You can look over the bare bones of the system for free at the Pathfinder SRD website.

Hope that helps!
 

Praetorian

Go Rangers!
Validated User
#5
I like it because it's D&D 3e - only slightly improved.

And I think D&D 3e was great.
Word.

Plus the support. I am a supplement junkie, and the support Pathfinder is getting it top-notch. I havent tried it out yet, but the new rules in the Advanced Players handbook are especially juicy.
 

Bailywolf

bwakbwak
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#7
Played it last night for the first time, and enjoyed it enormously. Played in the same setting as the GM's previous 3.X campaign, which I also enjoyed enormously.

We tend to play... unconventionally. Sub-optimal characters built to get themselves into horrible trouble and fail in gloriously awesome ways (with just a bit of min-maxing, because... shit, it's D&D right?). Because we have learned that sometimes horrible trouble and glorious failure are fantastically fun.

Anyhow, I really like it - as a refinement on 3.5 they seem to have taken the things I liked and made them better. I LOVE their take on the Sorcerer. I'm playing one (Draconic, as that ties him strongly into the setting). Min-maxed for rockstar Charisma. Utterly useless in any sort of practical endeavor, but looks great failing. I spent a huge chunk of my starting gold on hirelings (3 mistresses, a cook, a manservant, my favorite poet, and four nameless guys to carry the lacquered chests of delicacies, fine clothes, and drugs which are essential for a noble of his status when pursuing an imperial edict). I suspect some or all will soon be eaten by wyverns. I spent more on a masterwork morningstar because... well shit, because morningstars are awesome and I ended up rolling a decent Strength for the guy. Last night, I completely failed to hit two skeletons with it. But, as I said, I looked good while failing.

That's all playstyle though... pathfinder had lots of fiddly little options that provided some genuinely nice flavor and character hooks. And lots of colorful interesting ones available at low levels. My useless nobleman was inspired in small part by the Claws power of the Draconic sorcerer. I imagined him with the long painted fingernails of a mandarin, so he could never do practical labor. He sort of evolved from that.

I wouldn't like to play it with just anybody, but with my group, it's fantastic. The GM has totally internalized 3.5 and can run without notes, and with only a little rejiggering, he can do the same thing with pathfinder.

So, high production values, good art, a proven system which is further refined and improved in ways I really like, and tons of support.

-B
 

DigitalMage

Geek in wolf's clothing
Validated User
#8
It's pretty clear you haven't played any 3E, because it's nothing like 4E. Really, they're not the same game in the slightest.
I think that depends on the context, when you compare the two amongost other games like RuneQuest, Savage Worlds, Legends of Anglerre etc there are a load of similarities in terms of mechanics and setting assumptions.

Anyway, pretty much the only reason I like Pathfinder RPG (as opposed to the Pathfinder setting) is that it is used in the only currently supported and popular (IMHO) Living Campaign using a 3.x ruleset.
 

Jack

Wave Man
Validated User
#10
perhaps put this in the d20 D&D/Pathfinder forum?
Let's not, because if we do it will just end up like every other PF/4E compare and contrast thread ever. And I'm actually enjoying reading this one.

Now if we can get to page 4 or so without people complaining how Paizo is a terrible blight on the industry or how the game only appeals to old conservative grognards who fear change I'll be truly happy.
 
Top Bottom