Pathfinder thread

[Tadanori Oyama]

I felt like Pathfinder didn't do much to elevate the status of each class. None of them felt very different from their 3.5 incarnations to me. I'd hoped Pathfinder would follow a model closer to that of Book of Nine sword, accelerating some of the none spellcasting classes into higher levels of ability through additional systems.

I do like the rephrasing and adjustment to cleric class abilities. Paladins too. Barbarians got some changes that made for a slightly different style. Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues feel the same as they did in 3.5 for me. Some have new rules, they still play the same. I imagine most people are interested in Pathfinders because it is nearly identital to 3.5 D&D. I wanted something different. So, it's not really a product for me.

[Sean-o-tron]

... my group is probably one of the few groups that really like long drawn out overly detailed battle's, 4th ed battle system is to fast.  Probably why our current campaign is going on its 5th year of every saturday night play.

if that's the case then my group must be doing something wrong, because if there is a combat encounter during a session, it sucks up almost the whole night.

[Dogfish]

if that's the case then my group must be doing something wrong, because if there is a combat encounter during a session, it sucks up almost the whole night.

I agree, combat in 4th e.d is a time sink unless handled very carefully because compared to 3.5/pathfinder the enemies have much more health. I've done this comparison elsewhere but if you compare damage rates between the two there's not a massive difference but the average health in 4th compared to 3.5 it's roughly between 3 and 5 times the amount.

[clockworkjoe]

End fights whenever it becomes clear the monsters can't possibly win - don't drag it until the players have reduced every single monster to 0 HP. That retarded shit is dumb.