PDA

View Full Version : 4e Fluff and 3e/PF Rules: Two Great Tastes That Taste Great Together?



Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 12:28 AM
I've recently purchased the 4e D&D book, The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea. It inspired me with a couple of campaign ideas that I've bounced off my regular group for ideas. The problem is that NONE of them like 4e for various reasons. I like 4e. I also like the new Pathfinder rules, and if pressed, I will play regular 3.5e, but I'm not sure in this case. The obvious solution is to just use Pathfinder or 3.5 rules and use the setting info from the 4e books (deities, history, etc.). But is that a good solution?

I'm concerned that some of the paradigms may clash. For example, each of the 4e gods will need to be given 3.5e/PF domains, and their priests will be subject to the one-step alignment restriction, whereas in 4e D&D you can either be your deity's alignment or Unaligned. Paladins will also be an issue to, as they'll be restricted to only Lawful Good gods, whereas in 4e any deity can have paladins as now they just have to match their deity's alignment instead of always being Lawful Good. How would the paradigms of classes not in the different editions hold up (for instance, Pathfinder as-is doesn't have any rules for psionic classes, and 4e doesn't have any information on players who'd want to be things like alchemists or such).

I like the campaign ideas. My players like them. The problem is that we can't agree on which edition/game to play it in. I'm the only one who likes 4e. Everyone else stubbornly clings to 3.5, as well as Pathfinder once I introduced it to them. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :smallredface:

Vknight
2011-10-31, 12:43 AM
You can tell them their doing a 4e campaign and to get over it.

But if your so worried about emotional just remove that rule. If your a Paladin you can be one for any god.
If your a Cleric of Bahamut your can be true neutral.
In other words ignore the rules as written.

I say option 1because as it is one your campaign, two your story, and three a game you have no problems with then it is fine. After all it may effect some of there outlooks on 4e.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 12:46 AM
Their outlooks are pretty set in stone. To quote them, they hate 4e...

...because the way the classes are made sucks.

...because daily abilities for fighters is retarded.

...because it took away most of the benefits of my favorite race.

...because I actually LIKED all the elven subraces.

...because the core rulebook is so horribly made you can make a character with inifnite attacks per turn, showing the designers learned NOTHING from the flaws in 3.5.

...because of the way they changed the movement rules to make it almost required to use miniatures (forcing you to BUY THEM from WotC).

...because they took away all the freedom of choice in 3.5. Want to play a half-dragon troll ranger? NO! You'll play a dragonborn and like it.

...because healing surges, and all mechanics associated with them, make me sick.

...because the way they handled skills sucks.
I disagree on most of these counts (especially the half-dragon troll issue, since I HATE it when people treat the Monster Manual like a supplement to the Races chapter of the Player's Handbook), but whenever I want to play 4e, I get a lot of grumbling from them, it never goes anywhere, and I always have to GM it. It's frustrating.

WitchSlayer
2011-10-31, 01:51 AM
I don't see why you couldn't. Hell, some people use 3.5 fluff for Forgotten Realms in 4e, so have at it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 02:08 AM
What about when the PCs reach what would be epic levels in a 4e campaign? I've owned 3.0's Epic Level Handbook for years and it still makes little sense to me.

Eldan
2011-10-31, 04:20 AM
Stretch the levels out.

Look at what people can do in 4E epic levels. They can do all of it and much more in the mid levels of 3.5, except the names of the enemies will be different.

And 3.5 is very flexible in this regard. If you want your players to fight a god, no one stops you from taking a CR 20 avatar and calling that your god. Or taking some other CR 20 creature, slapping a few templates on it, and using that. God of Darkness? Half-fiend Nightcrawler. Tiamat? Multi-headed great red wyrm. And so on.

Personally, I'd avoid the EHL like the plague. It's one of the worst books in third edition.

Reluctance
2011-10-31, 04:50 AM
While the Great Wheel may be 3.5 canon, every setting that has come out has put its own spin on the cosmology. FR's planes only passingly resemble Greyhawk's, while Eberron's departs noticeably. So on that front, adjusting things should be simple.

To repeat some common DMing advice of mine, the big thing to remember is that overarching plots should not be your primary concern. The vast majority of your early adventuring career will take place on the prime material. Instead of plotting out divine-level plots that could easily never be reached if the game winds up falling through, focus on the here and now.

Nero24200
2011-10-31, 07:53 AM
Their outlooks are pretty set in stone. To quote them, they hate 4e...


I think you should tell them to try it first. A lot of the problems described here are far more present in PF than 4e.

Favorite Races is pretty much just a holdover. What little attempts Paizo have done to make them interesting have only made them unbalanced (there's a reason why humans are now the most popular sorcerer choice).

A fighter with infinate attacks? Quit frankly if they say they're worried about varying power levels and broken combinations then they clearly know nothing of 4e, since that kind of stuff is not only more common in 3.5 and PF, but a lot more common. The closest I've seen to a "too good" option in core 4e is the ranger power Twin Strike, and even then it only puts him a little ahead of other strikers.

Required to use minatures? Compare 3.5 to 2e. Have you tried working out threatened areas without minatures? What about in-combat speed? My group goes without but since then I've noticed that base land speed counts for almost nothing now and it's almost impossible to position yourself in such a way that threatened areas are significant. It pretty much boils down to your DM deciding if the enemy are stupid enough to stay near you or not, it's too difficult to use positioning to "lock them in" so to speak without a visual aid to help everyone.

It sounds to me that your group (no offense) are the typical ignorent 4e haters who simply don't like it because it's not 3.5 with nicer artwork. If you agree I would maybe try and push for them to try it, since seeing it in action could be enough to change their minds.

bloodtide
2011-10-31, 08:01 AM
You do know you can just change anything, right? And even if you don't want to change things, you can still make exceptions.

So you need to add domains to a new god? Not such a big deal.

You want to allow paladins to be of any alignment? Well 3E FR already did this, but you can do it also.

You want too add the 'I'm to lazy to think' Unaligned type to your game, then go ahead.

Mennayr
2011-10-31, 08:08 AM
First, don't just say "we're playing 4e, deal with it" - that will only cause problems and make it even harder to get people to want to play 4e, and could break up your gaming group.

You can easily adapt 4e content into 3.5/PF, but if you really do want to play 4e, try making some houserules to cover the issues your players have. Make new races to suit those who can't play their old favorite, tweak abilities, convert squares back to feet. People are often more willing to try a new system the more comfortable it feels, and even if they don't love it, you might get more concrete reasons why they prefer 3.5/PF once they've played the alternative.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 08:34 AM
I think you should tell them to try it first. A lot of the problems described here are far more present in PF than 4e.

Favorite Races is pretty much just a holdover. What little attempts Paizo have done to make them interesting have only made them unbalanced (there's a reason why humans are now the most popular sorcerer choice).
Actually, the race in question is one Paizo doesn't even have. They're mainly upset with what happened to the Warforged, namely that by being able to be poisoned and such they lost a lot of what made them a unique and fun race to play.

A fighter with infinate attacks? Quit frankly if they say they're worried about varying power levels and broken combinations then they clearly know nothing of 4e, since that kind of stuff is not only more common in 3.5 and PF, but a lot more common. The closest I've seen to a "too good" option in core 4e is the ranger power Twin Strike, and even then it only puts him a little ahead of other strikers.
It's less the actual issue (which exists in 3.5 in other forms, and more that it signifies Wizards of the Coast didn't learn ANYTHING from the last edition.

Required to use minatures? Compare 3.5 to 2e. Have you tried working out threatened areas without minatures? What about in-combat speed? My group goes without but since then I've noticed that base land speed counts for almost nothing now and it's almost impossible to position yourself in such a way that threatened areas are significant. It pretty much boils down to your DM deciding if the enemy are stupid enough to stay near you or not, it's too difficult to use positioning to "lock them in" so to speak without a visual aid to help everyone.
It's less the use of a positioning aid (this campaign wouldn't even use minis anyway as it's Play by Post), and more just calling Wizards greedy, which seems to be a sport these days.

It sounds to me that your group (no offense) are the typical ignorent 4e haters who simply don't like it because it's not 3.5 with nicer artwork. If you agree I would maybe try and push for them to try it, since seeing it in action could be enough to change their minds.
To be fair to them, some of them are intrigued by Essentials, which to them seems more like a step in between editions, a more gradual change, and thus a bit easier to swallow. Many of them simply can't GET Essentials due to financial constraints. And I'm inclined to agree with them in that respect. I call Essentials 4.5e as a term of respect.

Prime32
2011-10-31, 08:39 AM
What about when the PCs reach what would be epic levels in a 4e campaign? I've owned 3.0's Epic Level Handbook for years and it still makes little sense to me.Don't go that high. 4e goes 1-30, and 3e goes 1-20. You might as well ask what happens when your 4e party reaches lv31. "Epic" is just a name that was reused.

Besides, most lv30 4e characters have abilities comparable to an optimised lv15 3e character.

EDIT: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187713

charcoalninja
2011-10-31, 08:56 AM
Hell most epic level 4e characters can't even fly. You feel more epic playing a wizard at level freakin 5 in Pathfinder...

EDIT: I actually love 4e except for this one tiny flaw. This and rituals being an afterthought soured the system to me. That and the constant erratta. But the rules and the whole system is great. If the rituals were better done and designed to be a more cohesive system I probably would never have turned back to Pathfinder.

Now I'm hammering out a gestalt system between the two where we're using pathfinder classes with 4e mechanics added onto any class tier 3 and lower with tier 4 and lower getting full power progressions in addition to pathfinder stuff. So far its looking pretty fun. So you can definitly mix 4e fluff with pathfinder. I'm doing that right now in another game I'm playing. 4e realms, pathfinder mechs.

moritheil
2011-10-31, 09:12 AM
Paladins will also be an issue to, as they'll be restricted to only Lawful Good gods, whereas in 4e any deity can have paladins as now they just have to match their deity's alignment instead of always being Lawful Good.

If you're talking just SRD/core 3.x, I guess that's true . . . but 3.5 definitely saw paladin equivalents of all alignments (Paladin of Slaughter, Paladin of Tyranny, Enforcer, etc.)

I think the best thing to do in your situation, where your gaming pals have very specific ideas about what they will and will not put up with in the rules, is to talk to them directly.

Prime32
2011-10-31, 09:22 AM
If you're talking just SRD/core 3.x, I guess that's true . . . but 3.5 definitely saw paladin equivalents of all alignments (Paladin of Slaughter, Paladin of Tyranny, Enforcer, etc.)Paladins of slaughter/tyranny/freedom are in the SRD.

For LG/CG/LE/CE you also have the soulborn, but not only does it require you to learn a new set of mechanics, it's one of the worst classes in the game.

Tyndmyr
2011-10-31, 10:54 AM
You can tell them their doing a 4e campaign and to get over it.

I would recommend against that. Compromise is much preferable to ultimatums.

I'm not a 4e fan myself...but any system is likely to have at least bits of things worth stealing. If you love the fluff...use it! I routinely grab things from various games and editions that I find inspiring or suitable. Minor changes, like allowing paladins of various alignments, are definitely not a showstopper...especially if, like that one, they are permissive in nature. A player who dislikes CE paladins can always just...not play one.

As for epic, you basically take levels as normal. If you're going above level 20 in a class, see it's epic progression for class features. For BaB/saves in any class, use the epic progression instead of the class progression. Note that epic feats are available now. Done deal.

stainboy
2011-10-31, 12:31 PM
Paladins of slaughter/tyranny/freedom are in the SRD.

For LG/CG/LE/CE you also have the soulborn, but not only does it require you to learn a new set of mechanics, it's one of the worst classes in the game.

If this is PF there's also the antipaladin. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin) And nothing weird happens if you expand paladin to all G alignments and antipaladin to all E.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 04:12 PM
I would recommend against that. Compromise is much preferable to ultimatums.

I'm not a 4e fan myself...but any system is likely to have at least bits of things worth stealing. If you love the fluff...use it! I routinely grab things from various games and editions that I find inspiring or suitable. Minor changes, like allowing paladins of various alignments, are definitely not a showstopper...especially if, like that one, they are permissive in nature. A player who dislikes CE paladins can always just...not play one.

As for epic, you basically take levels as normal. If you're going above level 20 in a class, see it's epic progression for class features. For BaB/saves in any class, use the epic progression instead of the class progression. Note that epic feats are available now. Done deal.
But I keep hearing about what a mess the Epic Level Handbook is. I know it IS, because I've never been able to figure the damn thing out, but I'm not sure what the specific flaws and pitfalls of it are.

Also, how should I do alignment? Borrow 4e's alignment system and graft it onto Pathfinder, or try to fit 4e's deities into the old 9-alignment system?

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-31, 04:19 PM
Also, how should I do alignment? Borrow 4e's alignment system and graft it onto Pathfinder, or try to fit 4e's deities into the old 9-alignment system?

3.5 alignments. Devils are LE, Bane is LE, Avandra and Kord are CG.


In both PF and 3.5, Eladrin are elves. In PF, elves use Silent Hunter or Desert Runner, which replace Elven Magic. In 3.5, elves are wood elves.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 04:45 PM
And Dragonborn? Minotaurs? Wilden? Shardminds? Githzerai?

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-31, 05:04 PM
And Dragonborn? Minotaurs? Wilden? Shardminds? Githzerai?

Dragonborn (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b). Remove alignment restriction, use human as the base race, and treat it as a race rather than a template.

I believe there's a race in RotW that's similar to wilden.

3.5 minotaurs are demon minotaurs (or whatever the bigger, always evil ones are, they're in the MM in the minotaur section for sure) in 4e. You'll have to homebrew a race for regular minotaurs, I recommend powerful build, +4 strength, +2 constitution, -2 charisma in 3.5, and a bonus to intimidate, for +1 LA in 3.5, 0 LA in PF.

Shardminds... same as kalashtar but with the living construct traits for +1 LA, 0 in PF?

Githzerai are started up in the MM, but they're subpar and should be changed.

Eldan
2011-10-31, 05:07 PM
But I keep hearing about what a mess the Epic Level Handbook is. I know it IS, because I've never been able to figure the damn thing out, but I'm not sure what the specific flaws and pitfalls of it are.


Two main flaws.

First of all, it's mostly boring. Classes don't get new class features, instead they only get bonus feats. Most of those feats are things like "get +1 to [thing]", so after you have taken the two or three feats that actually make sense and give you anything cool, you get no new options.

Second, it exaggerates the balance flaws third edition always had. Casters get a feat that gives them a second quickened spell per round, a feat that gives them automatic metamagic, and an epic spell system that lets them create whatever monstrosities they can think of. "I'm so much better than you: this spell permanently gives +400 to intelligence and +800 to AC, no cost". Fighters, meanwhile, get +1 to attack.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-10-31, 07:38 PM
I see. Should it be possible for PCs to fight actual gods at level 20? Either campaign idea has them going up against Asmodeus at least, with the latter having them fight other evil gods as well, like Tiamat, Gruumsh and Tharizdun.

stainboy
2011-10-31, 07:47 PM
Most things that happen in 4e Epic Tier can happen before level 10 in 3e. You really don't need to go past level 20 to run a planar adventure.

If you're set on fighting actual gods you probably do need to run the game either close to epic or early epic though.

Psyren
2011-11-03, 08:14 AM
One thing I definitely think 4e did right with the Epic Destinies was giving every class actual abilities rather than just adding bonuses to the same things they'd been doing for the past 10 levels.

To do something similar to that in 3.P, you have a couple of options:

1) Create inventive epic progressions for each class (akin to the fantastic Epic Binder and Epic Warlock.) This is by far the most amount of work though, because none of the core classes and very few other base classes have epic progressions that are worth a damn.

2) You can only advance by PrC post-epic (if you've already finished your base class.) This is the easiest way to ensure the player gets something good at each level as they will pick a PrC that is fun for them. A lot of PrC abilities are really weak post-epic though, so you may want to narrow the field down to a short list.

3) Give each player a (possibly thematic) monster class/template to progress in. So the sorcerer starts becoming a Half-Dragon or Rakshasa, the psion becomes a mind flayer or unbodied, the figher slowly becomes a (living) golem, the paladin becomes a sword archon etc. This will create a bevy of roleplaying opportunities, and since you're post-epic won't really affect the game balance much. For some races, you can scale up the abilities to fit a 20+ game, and some are fine as-is.

One or a combination of these should keep things interesting.



In both PF and 3.5, Eladrin are elves. In PF, elves use Silent Hunter or Desert Runner, which replace Elven Magic. In 3.5, elves are wood elves.

4e Eladrin = High Elves, Grey Elves, Sun Elves
4e Elves = Wood Elves, Wild Elves

Moon Elves could feasibly be either

Eldan
2011-11-03, 08:23 AM
I see. Should it be possible for PCs to fight actual gods at level 20? Either campaign idea has them going up against Asmodeus at least, with the latter having them fight other evil gods as well, like Tiamat, Gruumsh and Tharizdun.

Gods as statted in Deities and Demigods, with divine powers and divine ranks? Unlikely. As is Asmodeus as statted in Fiendish Codex. You could probably do it with extremely cheesy use of high level magic, but that's probably not what you mean. These gods tend to have powers like sensing things that happen weeks ahead, being able to kill any creature they think of, or just alter the landscape on a country-sized scale.

However, if you chance your ideas of what "god" means a little, you could build something like it at level 20, yes. Asmodeus is, then, no longer an X HD unique outsider, he's a Pit Fiend with wizard casting, a personalized magical item or two and a different look. Tiamat is a multi-headed great red wyrm with tons of metabreath feats. Gruumsh is, I don't know, a hill giant barbarian of sufficiently high level. I'm sure if you ask around, people on the boards here could build you something nasty and interesting of the appropriate levels.

I would do what, from what I remember, 4E does too: build them as a challenging encounter for your level and invent a fluff reason why they have lost a lot of their power (i.e. why they aren't super-casters with the ability to wish that the floor of the entire continent was now lava). Make an artefact hunt first. Let them dodge a few servants and sabotage the church. Get them help from the good gods.

That should work just fine.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-11-03, 01:10 PM
Well, help from the good gods isn't quite an option in either scenario:

In the first one, the Player Characters are Outsiders, people whose souls aren't allowed into any divine realm because of a glitch in the afterlife's rules. The only realm they CAN enter is the Nine Hells because Asmodeus converted it from a divine realm into a torture machine meant to process souls into magical energy. In order to correct that glitch, the Player Characters have no choice but to invade Hell, leading an army of Outsiders like them.

In the second one, the PCs are avatars of several of the gods who've discovered that a number of evil gods are planning to rebel and side with the Primordials in a conflict to rival the one that created the world: it will become known as the Dusk War. The PCs, who have fought their way to become the most powerful avatars of their respective gods, have been made the gods' generals, leading the charge against the evil gods/demonic/primordial coalition force...until Tharizdun launches a suicide attack that kills the gods that the PCs are avatars of, reducing them to the last divine sparks of their respective gods. They may become those gods...if they can survive the Dusk War, which they now have to fight without their greatest allies.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-03, 01:25 PM
Well, help from the good gods isn't quite an option in either scenario:

In the first one, the Player Characters are Outsiders, people whose souls aren't allowed into any divine realm because of a glitch in the afterlife's rules. The only realm they CAN enter is the Nine Hells because Asmodeus converted it from a divine realm into a torture machine meant to process souls into magical energy. In order to correct that glitch, the Player Characters have no choice but to invade Hell, leading an army of Outsiders like them.

In the second one, the PCs are avatars of several of the gods who've discovered that a number of evil gods are planning to rebel and side with the Primordials in a conflict to rival the one that created the world: it will become known as the Dusk War. The PCs, who have fought their way to become the most powerful avatars of their respective gods, have been made the gods' generals, leading the charge against the evil gods/demonic/primordial coalition force...until Tharizdun launches a suicide attack that kills the gods that the PCs are avatars of, reducing them to the last divine sparks of their respective gods. They may become those gods...if they can survive the Dusk War, which they now have to fight without their greatest allies.

You bought Secrets of the Astral Sea, did you? Good book.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-11-03, 01:26 PM
Yes, I did. I said that right in the OP. :smallamused:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-03, 01:55 PM
It's been a couple days since I read the first post... :P

charcoalninja
2011-11-03, 02:27 PM
Hell for epic play you can go with something similar to E6 just stopping at lvl 20. After 20th level every x amount of exp gives a feat, everything else doesn't increase. Improves the versitility of the players, makes them really powerful, but doesn't allow for epic level handbook shenanigans.

Stat the gods and demonlods ala 4e with them topping out at CR 35 and you have players that with forethought, help and some luck can still challenge the gods.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-11-03, 03:03 PM
The problem is that all the math involved to stat things up is something I don't really know how to do. :smallsigh:

Jolly
2011-11-05, 06:05 PM
You can tell them their doing a 4e campaign and to get over it.

But if your so worried about emotional just remove that rule. If your a Paladin you can be one for any god.
If your a Cleric of Bahamut your can be true neutral.
In other words ignore the rules as written.

I say option 1because as it is one your campaign, two your story, and three a game you have no problems with then it is fine. After all it may effect some of there outlooks on 4e.

I laughed at this. If someone attempted to order me to play a game I didn't want to, I'd respond with some dismissive profanity and put them on the real life equivalent of an ignore list. Are you seriously suggesting that 4-5 people (or however many people are in the group) would and/or should go along with a peremptory command to do a recreational activity they have no interest in, just because one person really wants to? Seriously? My mind literally boggles at this...