Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC
Debate Rounds (4)
I am for Pathfinder, you are for Dungeons and Dragons. Which is better game.
Round 1 is to Accept.
Round 2 Argument for your position
Round 3 Rebuttals an additional arguments
Round 4 Summery (no new arguments)
You are confined to 3 outside links beside the company's actual website per round.
you may reference any book published by the company for reference. it is assumed based off argument that we have all moduals, codex and additional books. Failure to follow rules forfeits the argument.
Pathfinder is far better for a variety of reasons
1) Art. The art work raised the bar to a professional level that was unseen. Untill Pathfinder the only art that stood out was on there covers. each Pazio book is a art book unto itself.
2) Different based XP. The xp levels for different paces was totally a pazio idea that allows for slow growth to high adventure.
3) No dead levels, every level matter and is growing step where in DND some levels are just place holders.
4) Character customization and option is far more easily to follow, additional classes and skill sets, like the thief knife fighter or Airbender Cleric. Not everything was generic and builds allowed more freedom and creation without a thousand books to buy.
5) Skills have been simplified and expanded, allowing more skills to be more valued. (weak argument as it depends on DM, but the emphasis was and is there)
6) Combat manovers, feats and additional powers made martial classes more desirable at advance levels other then a buffer till spell classes could nuke everything.
7) Encounter levels are far more reasonable, and true to CR rating then DND (though i admit there is the odd one, its a far more STABLE system over all, though def needs work)
8) No towershield shenanigans. Items, powers and unbalanced things get addressed right away.
9) Cost, PDFs and book are works of art and some are worth the cost of art alone (if you value things like that).
10) Wizards of the Cost keep coming out with versions, which implies that its broke and needs fixing or its a money grab on the customers.
11) I can see what magical items look like and describe them an appreciate them.
1) Spells make melee characters worthless.
2) Skill point buys make each skill check either laughably easy for the rogue or nearly impossible for anybody except the rogue.
3) It's simpler to put powers into small blocks, instead of spreading them over several pages in multiple books.
4) Pathfinder still handles combat maneuvers in 3rd's clumsy style. A player sacrifices any ability to actually damage an opponent for a small tactical advantage, which, considering how fast most monsters can be downed, is never worth it. This leads to most fights having only one or two players do anything more than throw damage.
5) It is expected that each player use one item slot solely for their class's stat-boosting item. Almost all other magic items pretty much duplicate a wizard or cleric spell.
6) Pathfinder's CR system is both more vague and more complicated than 4th Ed's encounter budget.
7) Monsters are far easier to create and slot into appropriate adventures in 4th Ed.
8) Pathfinder's combat falls apart above 10th level, with wizards and druids finding almost no challenge in encounters not specifically built to nerf them.
9) 4th Ed is far easier to pick up and play for both players and DM.
10) Removing single attribute dependence allowed more class/race creativity without becoming useless and keeping any one skill from being overpowered (Dex).
1) Spells make melee characters worthless, by your arument makes both systems silly not pathfinder vs DND. To wit, beginning spell casters in DND are usesless untill they hit the magic FIREBALL stage. In Pazio they have far more to offer at beginning levels. In addition the cost for regents and items is a DM not game problem to enforce.
2) Except in the 2nd rnd of combat, in which case they are at teh disadvantage of the Fighter or anyone else in a group.
4) 4th ed and 5th ed, keep changing there systems, obvioulsy there is a flaw. Both are flawed, quite frankly a skill system like (vtm or larp or fate) works easier. both system fall apart here. 4th ed is still a walking clumby golem just a different stone.
6) its a problem for both games (f) agrees with you. We ave both come up with ridicules problems for players. But still prefer Coke. Srry Pazio.
8) Both games fall apart if you allow magic and treasure.
9) personal experience says other wise.
10) Again applicable with both and many ways around it.
Ill reiterate, whose books are art, there stories are beautiful and well written. The items usually ahve beautiful illustrations that allow a feel for the game not included in DND. DND chose not to use art work and raise teh bar untill pazio because they didn't feel like raising the bar.
2) the characters and there paths of development allow far better development then the original line path or the anything goes path.
3) why is there a 5th ed coming out if there wasn't a problem with 4 that a whole new product line is needed. (critz)
1) The art quality is extremely subjective. If you enjoy Wayne Reynold's pulpy art, then you'd love Pathfinder. Remember, though, that he also did most of the artwork for the Eberron campaign books (both 3.5 and 4th Ed).
2) Paizo wants campaigns to slowly grow to high levels, because Pathfinder starts to fall apart from sheer weight at those levels. Character growth far outstrips the basic monsters' growth past 12th level or so, so the most fun adventures are going to be around the midpoint of a character's "lifespan." D&D, however, is set up to have combat remain enjoyable from 1-30 levels.
3) This is something that both Pathfinder and 4th Ed share, so your point is invalid.
4) Character customization out of the core books is actually easier with D&D. Your character is allowed to choose from two different attributes to buff their defenses, for example, meaning that there is less reliance on putting points into Dexterity, for example, as a "god stat" that almost every character needs. While the role system more clearly defines classes, how those roles are addressed is up to the players, and several classes can cover for more than one role. Add to this prestige classes (at level 11) and epic destinies (level 21), and 4th Ed's PHB offers just as much, if not more, customization than Pathfinder.
5) Skills checks are still either wholly the province of the person whose class allows 8 skill points per level, or nerf those class's advantage to allow the character who only gets 2 skill points (show me the fighter who has a bonus to Int, and I'll show you a very fluffy player) to actually pass something.
6) Spellcasters don't just nuke everything. Given time to prepare spells, they humiliate any attempt to make combat interesting for other players. This starts happening around level 10, and scales with their primary attribute (Int/Wis).
I would love to say more, but I'm at the limit.
Last Argument round. Roll your 20.
I think this comes down to a very fine line of esthetics and what people play with. However the over all art work is still far superior. The raised the bar in the gaming world, not because they had to (like dnd ) but because they wanted to. The playablity of starting mages and middle of the road melee is no longer the meet bag in mid levels helps gameplay. for the amount of people working on it, they are staying true to gaming, while WOC is not a money machine. While they may have started teh buisness, they obviuosly are trailing in my opinion.
PS, my last fighter,
Samantha, Female Fight 8, Rouge 1, Wizard 1, Str 10, Dex 16, Con 11, Wis 12, Int 16, Cha 15. She died. I cried.
These changes were resented by a large group of gamers who had gotten used to playing 3rd Edition, and many of them accused Wizards of making a blatant cash-grab. This may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to whether or not 4th Edition is a good system. While Paizo has done wonderful things as a company, their game suffers from being tied to 3rd Edition's rule set. 4th Edition offered something new for people who had become accustomed to playing RPGs on consoles and computers. The game became far more flexible in party composition, class/race combos, stat assignments, skill choices, magical items, and spell lists. Encounters were plainly set up, with clear experience budgets to allow DMs to slot in new monsters, as well as an explanation of what each monster actually does. Ultimately, this flexibility allowed for more creative encounters, challenging the players to work strategically as a team across all levels.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.