View Full Version : 3.5 campaign settings, pathfinder vs all

2010-11-25, 08:06 PM
Bout to play a pathfinder campaign set in their world. Basically, how is it? I haven't had a chance to read it yet (deciding if its worth it or if I should just fake it).

In other words pathfinder setting vs FR, eberron, greyhawk, etc.

Rate it 1-10 compared to the others. Or maybe just give an order. It'd be appreciated. Thanks.

2010-11-26, 11:30 AM
I like it very well. It's a well thought out basic game world, with a lot to interact with. Reminds me a lot, and no doubt this was their goal, with the TSR game worlds (Greyhawk and the Realms). It's set in almost a Renaissance era. And the gods can be a bit more hands on (Quite a few of them are ascended after all).

Their are a lot of Pirate Nations on the coast, and several crusader nations in the middle, with colorful nations sprinkled about. Nearly every genera you can think of is in their somewhere.

My only detraction is that the game world is kinda small, so the cultures seem a bit mashed together. In the span of a week long boat ride you can go from Vikings to Samurai being out your window. Makes for a great game world, but when you sit down and think on it. Kinda makes ones head spin.

Pazio is reprinting the main book and making it consistent with their version of Pathfinder in the near future.

Over all, we have dabbled in it for a year now. I give it 7 out of 10.

2010-11-26, 11:37 AM
A nice variety of different themes, from Egyptian to Gypsy's to Vikings to Americans to the Americas to Revolutionary France. Certainly a very diverse collection of fantasy counterpart cultures, which is good for a basic campaign setting.

2010-11-26, 03:59 PM
Personally, I like FR more because of the ridiculous amount of content for it, Eberron because it's just freaking awesome, and Ravenloft because it's the classic undead horror setting. Not to say that the PF setting is bad, it's just not amazing.

2010-11-26, 04:10 PM
I'm pretty sure they are expanding the PF land mass and such.