Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Adaro

Diffan's page

818 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Making a ranged attack with a Weapon means that the Sharpshooter feat should apply. I don't see why it wouldn't?

If they wanted Sharpshooter to apply to just bows and stuff with ammo, then it should've only said "projectile" weapons. Otherwise, any weapon that used with a range greater than melee would be applicable. Further, why is that a bad thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cptexploderman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Cptexploderman wrote:
it's being repackaged as this edition

What does this even mean?

Between Pathfinder and 5e, one of them is something repackaged, and one of them is something new.

5e is new.

Oh, and Cptexploderman? Favoriting your own posts doesn't make it look like more people agree with you. It makes you look like you're desperate to make people THINK that more people agree with you.

Easy Kthulhu, it's a game. If you like it..as your unending posts in defense of 5th show you clearly have strong feelings for it. It's alright, dice up and have a go at it. 5th in my OPINION "simply that." draws heavily on Saga ed. Thus my repackaged statement. I fav'd my comment because it made me laugh sorry it's my troll knee jerk reaction. If it hurts you so deeply I promise I won't again.. Honest. I'm totally willing to hug this out, come on, bring it in.

I'm not really seeing the repackaged thing with D&D:Next, can you further elaborate?

I see similarities but the numbers and what they actually accomplish with this edition is FAR from what it once was. For some examples:

Feats - WotC introduced this mechanic with 3E and it's continued to now. It has, however, changed significantly with each edition. In 3E it was a way for character to get special non-class "Features" they could do. In a system that's heavily negative (meaning doing anything is often penalized) feats were meant to make your character feel stronger in a certain area. Like Two-Weapon Fighting, for instance, reduced the -6 / -8 penalties to -2/-2 with a light, off-hand weapon. In 4E they weren't so much "You can do X ability now" but more of a "Add X to an ability you have or a class feature you have or X-damage type". In essence, they boosted your overall capability OR gave you outright power increase or higher numbers in a specific area. They also funneled ALL the Multiclassing to this aspect. In 5E, it's completely devoid of character growth as a requirement, instead making it optional. Further, the benefits received are MUCH greater, as many people refer to D&D:Next's feats as Macro-feats because it gives you multiple benefits at once.

Classes - This one too has similarities yet is vastly different from previous editions. Even just looking at the Core rules, each class has a little bit of 3E and 4E thrown in but on a framework that is set FAR below what either edition is expected to be. For example, a 4E Fighter was pretty much expected to have an AC 19 / 20 / 22 progression by 5th level and progressing to 30's and 40's by tier while a 5E Fighter's AC can easily be set at 18 for a GOOD portion of their career IF they didn't receive magical items. And look at spellcasting. Players aren't getting multiple HIGH level spells this time around, topping out at ONE 9th level, regardless of Intelligence modifier. Suffice to say that they've attempt to blend the better parts of 4E and 3E into something similar yet brand new that has it's own identity.

Also, I might add that WotC has tried REALLY hard to get that "vibe" back, making 5E appear like older versions. Personally, I loved 4E (I still thinks it's the best system by far) however I accept that a lot of people were put off by a lot of it, even down to the layout, colors, and interior design of the books. To many, it didn't "feel" like D&D and while it's subjective, it means that if people don't get that vibe then they're less likely to buy it.

So maybe the idea of it being more like previous editions is done by design, because that way when people look at it they'll say "Oh, this is definitely D&D."


Kthulhu wrote:
You realize that under DDI, you had the option to download PDFs of the complete issues of Dragon and Dungeon, right? In fact, I paid for one month of DDI right at the end of both magazines, and downloaded the entire 4e run of both. For the price of 1 month of DDI. And those PDFs are mine to keep forever.

Exactly. I've downloaded most of them while paying for DDI.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

I think there was less expectation, among the players, that 5E would be similar to any previous edition.

Therefore, no reason for upset, if and when things are found to have changed.

I've run adventures written for Moldvay B/X, Mentzer BECMI, Gygax AD&D, and Cook 2ndEd, in a variety of other editions up to 3.5, without much conversion needed.
A lot of people were expecting 4E to be a revision and clarification of 3.5, incorporating lessons learned since 2000. The rules had been recompiled in the Rules Compendium, several classes had been introduced in later books, to bridge the perceived power discrepancy between martial and caster PCs. When hearing a new edition was in the works, plenty of people believed they'd be getting that info in a new set of core books.

Was that a reasonable belief? You can argue yes or no on that. (Please don't)

Yeah, I heard a lot of that too. Not really sure where the notion came from but LOTS of people were pointing to the Star Wars: Saga rules and Tome of Battle as the building blocks for 4e and I don't refute they drew inspiration from those sourcebooks, a significant portion of the game changed that didn't look like that. I blame the lack of charts and color-coded boxes myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the Dungeon Dragon online subscription. To be able to easily reference ANY magazine, article, adventure, monster, item whatever in just a few seconds AND not take up a full shelf.and a half of space is awesome.


Zombieneighbours wrote:

I don't often say stuff like this, but lets not go any further down the routes that are openning before us.

Rather can I ask, has anyone seen much in the way of edition warring over 5th?

From my perspective, yes and lots of it during the playtest process. Basically people were of the assumption that if.they were vocal enough about a particular topic chances it might get changed. For example, lets take the GWF debate (or damage on a miss). This particular mechanic made its way from 4e's at-will power Reaping Strike and into a fighter class themecalled Reaper. It continued in various features and abilities throughout the ENTIRE playtest and Mearls statement regarding it was (it received mostly positive reviews). Towards the end, after the final packet was released in Oct. 2013 the sheer amount of threads started, argued in, and then closed (by which were started by a handful of posters) had reached ridiculous levels. And, the basic rules are released and GWF is changed to something else.

That's just one specific example about the new e-war. Other topics ranged from "apprentice levels", Hit Die healing, no Warlords and non-magical healing, DM-may-I / DM fiat complications, player entitlement, 4e's supposed All-Core approach, magical item stores, player agency and DM empowerment, and the Stormwind Fallacy.

These topics were constantly being argued over among other non-game related stuff like Copyright BS, OGL shennanigans, 3PP support, video game analogies, marketing and sales, who's making more, what dependant on on-line tools, how digital is either good or bad and why, pirating, and the all important "feel" of the game.

Now that the rules are out, there's not much to argue about now besides what they could've done better or worse or how things will work in the future.


Chuck Wright wrote:
(P.S. I liked some thing about 4E, but the way it played wasn't my cup of tea. Pointing out this or that was done in 4E is a complete "whatever" for me and has absolutely no bearing on the conversation other than to drag edition warring into a thread. Just sayin'.)

I point it out because it isn't something that WotC has recently implemented and that people have been enjoying for quite some time. No e-warring intended.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chuck Wright wrote:

They talk about alignment tendencies in the Oaths. One of the Oath paths talks about Chaotic Good as being the common alignment.

Yes. They've unhooked alignment from all classes and it's about time.

They did that back in '08 with 4e too, just sayin'.


Marc Radle wrote:
Diffan wrote:
DaveMage wrote:


Keep in mind that WotC has said that they want to tie in their products to computer games, board games, etc. Therefore, you may see the Dark Sun setting at the same time a Dark Sun board game or computer game is ready to go.

Which, IMO, isn't all that bad of an idea. I get not wanting to churn out splats and all but they're going to need some substance after the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and DMG come out. Even if it's adventures and such from 3PP support like Necromancer Games.
Kobold Press produced the first two official 5E epic Tyranny of Dragons adventures for Wizards of the Coast, after all.

Exactly, which sounds like a pretty solid business decision. Get them to write it, slap the D&D logo on it, sell it as an official adventure. And, honestly, I always felt 3PP did adventures better than WotC anyways. They've had a few that were pretty good but for most of 4E's run the published adventures always felt too rail-roaded from the DM's perspective. It took a bit more work to get them a bit more organic and realistic, something I don't think is a problem now.


DaveMage wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
Or farming these projects out to other companies as they are the adventures.
I've heard from some industry insiders that this is in the process of happening.

WotC does not have the staff numbers on the tabletop RPG line anymore to churn out product like they did for 3.x/4E.

They will absolutely farm it out if they want to create more than 2-3 large products/year.

I would expect you will see all of those campaign settings eventually, though it may take up to 4 (or more) years to get them all.

Keep in mind that WotC has said that they want to tie in their products to computer games, board games, etc. Therefore, you may see the Dark Sun setting at the same time a Dark Sun board game or computer game is ready to go.

Which, IMO, isn't all that bad of an idea. I get not wanting to churn out splats and all but they're going to need some substance after the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and DMG come out. Even if it's adventures and such from 3PP support like Necromancer Games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:


As far as I'm concerned, 4e is an abomination. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable? No. Elicits uncontrollable eye-rolling and face-palming for the over dramatic usage of words? Yes.

Further, it sadly demonstrates the gulf and disparity that fans of a niché hobby face over the most moronic things.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I gotta say, DnD 5e is pretty fun. To me it feels like what I like about 3e/pathfinder, to my gf if feels like 1e and others at the table, it feels like what they feel is their favorite edition. I should also say that 5e has my gf playing again after a number of years away, something pathfinder was never able to do. They did a really good job with it. Combined with the fact that every game store owner I've talked to, they express really good sales. I don't think Wizards is destroying the hobby at all. I really think they stepped up to the challenge and did well.

To give credit where credit is due. They did good.

Agree with this totally. The 5e PHB is the first RPG book I've actually bought since the 3.0 PHB when it first came out.

I haven't seen it yet, though I think it looks good. The only problem I have with it is: What does it replace? I mean, I like 5E and the play test was fun, but my group really digs 4E and we still play v3.5 and I can sorta get the same feeling by just playing E6.

Simon Legrande wrote:
For myself, and I suspect many others, the 5e rule set is a return to the way RPGs are supposed to be. After the abomination that was 4e, I'm glad to see the direction they went with this new edition.

Honestly, was that sort of terminology necessary? I get some don't like 4E, fine, but these sorts of comments just inflame edition warring and all the BS that goes along with it.

Simon Legrande wrote:


That being said, I'm still wary of the WotC methodology. For myself, I'll be happy to play for many years with just the three core books. If they add meaningful changes without just going full-on splat, I may buy more beyond that.

And, after initial sales, how do they continue to turn a profit?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kenjishinomouri wrote:
Why is Wotc wasting their time follying up a whole new edition of their game when they should just cave in and market their settings and own adventures. They could at least make some money on the success of their most recently successful edition 3.75.

Probably because there are quite a lot of people who don't play Pathfinder or v3.5 because of how......I'm gonna be nice......unwieldy the system can be, especially at higher levels. And because a LOT of people just won't purchase yet another homebrewed 3rd Edition again. Going outside the Paizo bubble and reading comments on 5E, it's shown me just how far people have come in the last 5 or 6 years in terms of what they want in their systems. I've seen people ride the Pathfinder band-wagon and later accept that the system has most of the flaws of v3.5 while only adding enough bells and whistles to keep people's attention OR because they're sticking with a system they already known vs. a brand new edition with a LOT of different rules and style (ie. 4E) and because it was easier.

Now that 5E is out and it's 1) more streamlined. 2) easier and faster to pick up and play. 3) can be used to convert a LOT of v3.5 and 4E material. 4) has better balance across the board than v3.5 and Pathfinder, I think it's a safe bet that 5E will do fairly well early on. The true telling will be later in the year after or a year after release and how they handle the amount of bloat people are used to coming out. Can they create adventures that are useful and fun? It appears that Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and the Murder in Baldur's Gate / Icewind Dale / Dead in Thay adventures were quite amusing and fun from people's reactions across the forums.

Kenjishinomouri wrote:

Seriously with all their settings they have more than enough products they could sell and easily make a decent profit. WE NEED EBERRON, DRAGONLANCE, FORGOTTEN REALMS, GHOSTWALK, RAVENLOFT..... The list goes on, right there you have 5 months worth of just hardcovers, then you could go for adventures, miniatures, etc.... seriously do they have apes sitting in the ceo chairs making these pathetic decisions. If they are gonna continue to blindly destroy everything they had worked on for so long they could at least get along with it faster and sell the dnd license to paizo, at least then it would be put to good use.

Or they could just make a better game. 5E seems, on many fronts, to be just that. Considering that I frequent places like theRPGsite, who's extremely.......I'm gonna be nice........one sided in their view of 4E and WotC in general, the amount of support the new version is getting is pretty amazing to witness. Let alone at other places as well.

I think the fact is: People are getting burnt out on the ridiculousness of the 3rd Edition system (and for many others 4E as well). The bloat, the trap options, the moronic levels of numbers and broken combos and page after page after page of options and the HUGE dependence on magical items, and monster stat blocks that fill entire pages, and high level play being completely dominated by spellcasters are just getting on people's nerves. People don't want to see Players dishing out 158 DPR in 1 turn at 11th level. People don't want to see ACs ascending into the 40's or Attack modiiers hitting +30/+25 yadda-yadda. ALL of that is pretty apparent in v3.5 and Pathfinder (and to an extent 4E as well).


JoeJ wrote:

When regards to power, I did notice that in 5e high level wizards can't use Astral Projection to become unkillable while adventuring, and there are no Explosive Runes suitcase nukes or sno-cone wish machines.

Agreed. And the more I read about "buff" spells and concentration the more I see the incentive of using those spells on his allies to help win encounters instead of just doing it himself.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Still waiting to hear people admit they don't like it because its hard to min max or power game to break a dm's campaign. Even more bold would be admitting they do it because they derive enjoyment from feeling overpowered and ruining other peoples fun.

Why?


I'm happy to see feat chains go and instead get bigger feats that do more for you. Sure, this cuts down a bit on options but what they need to do is have ways that players interact with the environment more. If I want to grab a vase and smash it over someone's head, that should be a thing without 1) having to take ridiculous penalties, 2) having to need a feat or a specific Stat score, or 3) have it be SO under powered that doing it is not worth my time or energy.

On top of that, I'm also glad stats aren't the END-ALL, BE-ALL to the game and someone with a score of 12 can still, to a degree, contribute with that score compared to someone with a 17 or 18.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I really don't see any difference in playstyle or how players approach the game from a system's stand point. I've been running the playtest in the same manner I've run 3e, PF, 4e, and played in AD&D. Rules and tactics change a bit, sure, but to me there's been no significant difference in playstyle.

I kind of agree - I play pretty much every game the same way. Nonetheless, I can see how system can have an impact for some people - to create a hypothetical example:

If a system provides explicit rules for combat maneuvers and if those are always worse than a standard melee attack, then people will be unlikely to utilise them. In a looser game where the DM will adjudicate the desired action it's easier (as in the players will accept it more readily) to tweak the resolution mechanic so that players will sometimes choose the flashy move and sometimes wont. That's certainly been our experience anyhow.

I dunno if i've come across a system where a combat maneuver has been hands down worse than a basic attack. From D&D we have maneuvers from 3.5, an elegant combat system with Pathfinder, and 4e powers that have been pretty good to just attacking. Further, one can use these as examples of how to adjudicate other actions for those who prefer a more free-style approach.


I really don't see any difference in playstyle or how players approach the game from a system's stand point. I've been running the playtest in the same manner I've run 3e, PF, 4e, and played in AD&D. Rules and tactics change a bit, sure, but to me there's been no significant difference in playstyle.


Wrath wrote:


I have a gut feeling this edition will appeal to the E6 fans of Pathfinder.

It's hard to say. I consider myself a very strong advocate for E6 (it's actually what I'd run full-time for v3.5) and E7 for Pathfinder but I'm not sure D&D5 will trump it. The elegance, for lack of a better word, in E6 is that your not dealing with "levels" after a certain, early point. There's no need to worry about spell slots and higher levels spells like Wish and Meteor Swarm. And there's still the mini-game of Character Customization that's not as deep in D&D5. Plus v3.5 and Pathfinder have been around a LOT longer AND their stuff is nearly all free online. That way I can look at a site, pick feats and a class, and *BOOM* I'm done.

I see similarities and that's a good thing. Lower numbers and lower intensity for system-mastery are things that can be good. Monsters of lower levels being continuous threats at most levels is also a good thing. The idea that magical items aren't required and that even weapons that are just "+1" being special are tailored to the E6 enjoyment.

I think the biggest hurdles is the use of super-high magic, HP inflation at the later levels of the game, and fantastic abilities that exceed most mortals. These are things that aren't prevalent in E6 due to the nature of stopping the game at a low level. It makes most characters still "mortal" in the sense of their relation to NPCs and to the overall world. For example in D&D5 a 10th level or higher Fighter is getting 3 attacks and has a good chance his AC is close to or above 20. Most guards will have attacks that will only hit on a 17 or higher, thus making him an extremely dangerous foe. In E6 the AC is similar but his HPs are still hovering around 40 to 50 instead of double that. And his saves are still low (+2 to Reflex and Will) and if the system is played right, he's not fully decked out in magical wares. So a Fireball still poses a significant threat to him as do town guards and things like critical hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
insaneogeddon wrote:

Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats- save feats, re-roll feats, spring attack, shot on run, bonus actions etc etc

Monks can be benders- flying, breathing fire etc

Far less caster martial disparity so cannot even limit players by limiting classes?

30 bonus feats...?????

From the free Basic rules I see the Fighter getting 7 Feat opportunities (which override the option of taking an Ability Score bump).

What are Save Feats? You mean like Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, Iron Will that were in v3.5 and Pathfinder? I don't have the PHB yet so I haven't seen how good the Feats are yet.

Spring Attack was a ridiculously moronic thing to throw in as a feat in v3.5 and PF, as was Shot on the Run. And everyone gets like one bonus action.

As for Monks being "benders" I say FINALLY!! Do you know how difficult it was to make a "Bender" style character in v3.5? I had to create it's OWN separate class because a Multi-class Monk/Magic-User was a useless attempt that ended in frustration. The only thing close was a Fire-Bender with the Swordsage using Desert Wind maneuvers. Earth Benders were "sorta" done with the Swordsage and Stone Dragon / Iron Heart / and Setting Sun maneuvers.

Even 4E was rather "meh" on the whole concept. It took someone building their OWN whole Avatar: The Airbender system to do that.

So I'm not really sure I understand the problem here. You get a total of +6 to your attacks and saves over 20 levels compared to +10/+15/+20 attacks and +12/+6 saves of v3.5 and Pathfinder OR +15 in 4E.

Then you look at feats, of which Pathfinder nets 10 per 20 levels and 4E's 18 over 30 levels. Feats in Next are based on class, of which only the Fighter has the highest with 7 over 20 levels.

I have to assume this is a joke.


memorax wrote:
Diffan wrote:


But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.

Seconded. Players want to make characters asap. If it means less choices than so be it. I don't agree with that type of philosophy yet understand it.

Couldn't they have also created "packages" for those who don't want to bother with the option minutia? I mean, if someone wants to play a "Knight", there could've been a simple "make these your best scores with this background and class" rather than removing all the other things that someone could take ala-carté. Instead we get two levels of "meh" until most classes first big choice in career path occurs at 3rd level. I know I can always just start at 3rd level but I feel zero-level or pre-level rules would've fit the bill FAR easier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cambrian wrote:

In all fairness a robust system of options is only a great advantage if some choices don't severely outclass others.

For 3rd many feats are just plain bad while others are simply auto picks for a given character type.

In reality 5th ed characters have more options on their turn at first level since they can innately do many things 3rd requires you to have feats to perform.

Yes, some feats were bad (Toughness, for example). Some feats were meh and some where auto-picked. Yet there were a LOT that were chosen for flavor and fun. As for more options, in 5e its largely allowed due to DM fiat. For example your only cleaving if the DM says so. Your only bull rushing and attacking if the DM allows it.


Greylurker wrote:

I ordered the 5E Player's Guide from Amazon cause it was cheap ($30) and I'm a collector of RPGs (My shelves are full of wonders) but I don't know if I'm going to really get into the game.

Part of it is going to come down to what WoTC plans as far as releases go. If they are expecting people to buy a high end hardcover book every month or two, I'm out. IF they focus on smaller cheaper things the way Paizo has then I may be a little more agreeable. For the most part though me and my group and reallyt happy with Pathfinder. The game is pretty much where we want it.

5e kind of feels like they hit a Dead end with 4E, backed the truck up all the way to 2nd edition and then went down a side road instead of moving up to 3rd.

It doesn't look like a bad game It just doesn't seem like the one me and my friends want to play.

I can sympathize. On one hand, I don't think it's a terrible game. I don't think it's design is flawed or overly un-balanced. I think they strove for the BEST game they could while adhering to people with TOTALLY different approaches to the game. So you have decisions like keeping magical items super-rare and rather....."meh" overall, something older fans like because they hate the "magic shoppe of 3E - 4E games." But then you have things like Hit Die healing and Second Wind which give nods to inspiration / non-magical healing, something that modern-gamers tend to like that older players don't.

So from my perspective, it's the sort of game you see that's compromised of a committee. It's like they sat down with the leaders of various editions and got ALL their ideas, kept the ones the majority of them liked (A class-based, medieval fantasy RPG that uses the d20 for a resolution mechanic) and then fought for EVERYTHING else. In some places, compromises were made and in others one side got the better deal. Since it's release there have been people who didn't like 4E say there's too much of it in D&D:Next and there have been 4E fans who say nothing relevant from 4E made it into D&D:Next. Then there are some who find that it's the BEST system they've played yet.

For me, it basically comes down to this: What does D&D-Next do that other systems don't? I've struggled with that question since 2012 when they announced they were in the process of creating a new edition. And through ALL the playtests I've run and the games we've played, I still cannot answer it well enough.

For one thing, it doesn't do high-action, cinematic fantasy as 4E does. It's not combat-focused enough that gives any significance to my in-combat decisions. I'm not weighing the options I have of using an Encounter power vs. an At-Will or Daily NOR does it have the tactical depth in ally support 4E does.

For another thing, it doesn't scratch the character-creation mini game that is v3.5 and Pathfinder. I think it tries, but it fails to accomplish it. With v3.5 and Pathfinder you simply build the character you want and the mechanics fuel that to a literal degree. The amount of customization that both v3.5 and PF have blows 5E out of the water. And especially when you look at PF's archtypes or v3.5's alternate class features, it's difficult NOT to be able to build ANY character you can imagine (it's getting it to work well that seems to be the biggest problem).

So what's left? I think it comes down to speed and ease of play. While I still love v3.5 and PF and 4E they're all pretty robust and cumbersome when it comes to the rules (4E, less so than v3.5). The easy resolution system of 5E makes adjudication simple and quick. Advantage/Disadvantage is FAR easier to implement than the 20+ different modifiers that PF and 3.5 have AND it's easier to track than the mind-numbing amount of "End of your Next turn" powers of 4E. And of course the numbers have been paired down significantly. No more +33 to hit, 144 damage per round. No more ACs reaching the 50's. No more DC saves of 28. No more 2,550 HP for monsters. No more "It grapples you and.....you lose" situations. Not to mention combat is quicker, meaning you get more in over the course of an adventure.

Is this enough material to scratch an itch that neither v3.5/PF or 4E can? It's hard to say. I've come to really enjoy E6 as a mini-system. For those who aren't aware of what E6 is, it's basically v3.5 that stops leveling at 6th level and everything else afterwards is just additional feats. PF has a version called E7 but you could use any level to stop at and just use feats afterwards. I'm not sure if D&D:Next can fill this role of E6, especially when SO much out there is geared towards this tier of play for v3.5 and PF but who knows?


ulgulanoth wrote:
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?

It depends on quite a few factors. For one, are you using Feats? Are you using the PHB races or just Basic races? Are all the sub-paths open? Stuff like that.

So far I've found the mechanical crunch far below that of both v3.5/PF and 4E. Options, especially early at 1st - 3rd level, extremely bare. A 1st level paladin, for example, gets Divine Sense (senses undead, celestial, demonic creatures) and Lay on Hands. That's it. No feats. No prayers or spells, no smite, nothing. So when you roll up your character, your decision points are Abilities, Race, Class [Paladin], Skills, Background, and Gear. That's about it. What differentiates one paladin from another mechanically is the weapons, armor, and backgrounds they choose.

Compare this to 4E's Paladin with 4 at-wills to choose from, 4 encounter powers, 4 Dailies, 1 to 2 feats (which opens other options), weapons, a theme, background, race and possible racial powers that come with it.

And to v3.5 and PF's version where feats and race play a large factor as well. AND you get things like Smite.

But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.


I don't mind a healer not being required in basic parties. It frees up people to play what they really want vs. what they "need". Further, the idea of a non-magical healer was something of a Godsend to me because I honestly liked playing the support role but not necessarily all the spell management that came along with it.


I find that it scratches an itch only low level 3.5 or Pathfinder have done and it does.it far better than either of them (barring E6 style games). Its a fun system when were taking breaks from our 4e campaigns (something Next will probably never replace).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't have a problem with it. When I play 3e or PF it's obscene the amount of thi.gs that stack and can stay on for a LONG time, spanning multiple encounters even. It was to the point that you really didnt need a Fighter if there was a cleric in the group and wizards / druids were worse.

Besides, buff spells are still good and contribute to the party but don't necessarily make encounters trivial. And they have things like Cantrips to rely on and Clerics can still wade in with mace in hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And if it tanks, we have only ourselves to blame.


More DM adjudication, less math, less complexity (comparatively speaking), less emphasis on magical gear, less round-to-round choices (or, I should say less codified mechanics that fuel choices). At least that's my experience.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Right now I just can't see what 5e offers me. Every other edition has had something, and I see all those getting excited over 5e and enthusiastic. I know others must see something in it, but I can't see that it offers anything that the older editions didn't already offer.

Can you guys who are really going out and getting into 5e explain why you are so excited about it and what it is offering that should get me or others excited?

Some of the reasons why I'm liking it so far:

• Ease of play - The first thing I look for in an RPG is how simple the basics are and what options do they cover. Looking at 3E, for example, I look at the Grappling or any other special attack/action rules and I just cringe. It's so heavily penalized that you need to be SUPER-tricked out to even have decent attempts at it. 4E somewhat simplified this and 5E continues that as well. Looking at things like modifiers, Next doesn't have all that many, and I feel that's an improvement over the plethora of "+" or "-" of 3E or "Until the end of your next turn" stuff of 4E. Simply put, your not doing lots of math to finish your turn.

• Combat - Whilst I love 4E and v3.5/PF, the combat can get a bit excessive. I know 4E is always pointed out as the HOURS long combat sessions (never experienced it though) but 3E is no better, especially at higher levels. 5E somewhat cuts this down dramatically. Now I'll grant that it doesn't have the interesting round-to-round options that 4E's powers emulate (yet, anyways) or 3E's hundreds of combat-based Feats but I think there not really needed since a player can just describe what he wants to attempt and the DM just looks at the DC chart and goes off that or it's often simply a Stat vs Stat opposed roll with little modification.

• Smaller Focus - Looking at the higher levels of both 3E/PF and 4E and you'll notice characters, monsters, and NPCs with just ridiculous numbers. Is that really necessary? What does that say about the rest of the world in comparison? For example, I just created a 14th level Swordsage for our v3.5 campaign and his AC is 31. That means he can literally go into any small village and do whatever he wants because the guards cannot even touch him because of the numbers. I find that to be really immersive-breaking. With D&D:Next, a 14th level Warrior is a scary dude, but even solo against the town guards he'd probably struggle and would eventually be brought down if there's enough of them.

• System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.

• Specifics - A small list of things that, for me, make the game more interesting and easier to play than 3E or 4E:

- Movement broken up by feet allows people to move, attack, move with no special power or feat required.

- Opportunity Attacks aren't as broken in this edition as they were in 3E but still remain relative.

- No more differentiation between standard action / Full-round action. A fighter gets ALL of his attacks every round.

- Less focus on picking powers or feats to use and more emphasis on just describing what you want to do and the DM sets the DC based off of a chart.

- Less things to keep track of (4E's powers are notorious for this) AND less things that disrupt the flow of the game (again, immediate interrupt/reaction powers of 4E or Feats from 3E).

- Advantage/Disadvantage is something that's fairly simple to implement but is also dramatic when used in harry circumstances.

- Versatile weapons are actually versatile now, cutting out unnecessary "special/exotic" weapons like the Bastard sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rathendar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.

And yet the "decisions" you paraphrased are basically your negative opinions of the edition and less to do with actual reasons for those changes.

Second, how does ANY of that constitute a trust violation? From my perspective the only thing WotC is at fault for is the taking away of PDFs people bought (though why they weren't saved and stored on a device is beyond me) and falling through with their promises on a VTT and on-line tools. Everything else, no it wasn't a breach of trust. They didnt go in a direction people like and they got mad and complained.

If a company i purchase from goes in a direction i do not wish for or desire, then i can no longer trust them to make what i like. How many things have to diverge from a person's preferences for them to be able to say they have no trust in the company's actions to satisfy your personal definition?

Let me ask, you find a product you like. Do you instantly trust them to continue to make the exact same product forever? I don't think it's about trust, something I generally associate with actual people, I think it's about expectations and disappointment. For some, the direction the game took was a disappointment to them. I severely doubt "trust" was broken. Perhaps people might be more cautious about purchasing products from them OR take a longer in-depth look to what their products do before purchase but that's a stance every consumer should be taking.

Further, 4E had LOADS of changes to try the product before buying it. And the same is true with NEXT. You can easily see the game's direction their taking and either that A) suits your needs or B) it doesn't. It has absolutely zip to do with gaining trust back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.

And yet the "decisions" you paraphrased are basically your negative opinions of the edition and less to do with actual reasons for those changes.

Second, how does ANY of that constitute a trust violation? From my perspective the only thing WotC is at fault for is the taking away of PDFs people bought (though why they weren't saved and stored on a device is beyond me) and falling through with their promises on a VTT and on-line tools. Everything else, no it wasn't a breach of trust. They didnt go in a direction people like and they got mad and complained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, guys, time for 4dventure! Let us focus on tactics and combat only, after all we are trying to attract the MtG and WoW players. Skills? Nah, we just make them a guessing game and call them skill challenges. What else?"

"Well, we could do inspiring monsters?"
"Nah, the bean counters want us to use only copyrightable names, so icefrostchoke elemental is what is going to happen."
"Darnit. How about interesting powers for the PCs?"
"So long as they can only do straight damage, inflict ongoing damage or conditions, or move people around the board. The ninety-year-old focus group doesn't understand more than that. They also think we should have more hotels, free parking and do not pass go."
"Umm.. Okay. I know, we can focus on the IP we already have, like the Forgotten Realms?"
"No, focus groups have said there is too much stuff on it, so we are carpet bombing it with a Spellplague and then a century time jump. The fans are going to love it, by our calculations."
"What calcuations?"
"The ninety-year olds told us."
"Sounds like a tough situation... Computer stuff?"
"Yeah, about that, we really want people to pay every month instead of just once, you know like WoW, so we are going to make this really cool three dimensional dungeon delving system. All the details aren't sorted out yet, but hey, we can still promise it."
"The Paizo guys are REALLY getting fan support nowadays, shouldn't we throw some support their way?"
"Hmmm, no. Let's cancel both mags, and fold it into our monthly scheme. We can even do a cool corporate sketch about four parts of the experience interlocking and supporting each other - the bosses upstairs would really like that."
"But... Cancel? Is that wise?"
"Their fans are our fans. They can't do diddlysquat without legal access to the ruleset."
"Uh, sir... You do know about the OGL?"
"Damn, we... I know, we release a new one, charge five grand for using it and include that those that do never get to publish under the OGL again! I mean, this is the new hot stuff, it has to sell...

*rolls eyes*

And the edition war continues......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I like the sculpt spell ability because it shows that Evokers know their way around destructive magics. It shows that training steadily in the particular school has greater benefits than being a generalist. I'd also like to see what other effects are tied to schools.

I agree with the thought process here but I feel the sculpt bit is ultimately cheesy. I probably shouldn't say this but the no friendly fire thing reminds me of an element I dislike in video games. It just removes an interesting challenge of the game and makes it easier. I wish they would have chosen a different school for the PDF.

I'd agree with you if it was something every wizard could do or any spellcaster could pick up with a feat. But since is a limited option from one school of magic, I don't see the harm. Every wizard who isn't an Evoker is still limited to picking carefully where to place their AoE spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the sculpt spell ability because it shows that Evokers know their way around destructive magics. It shows that training steadily in the particular school has greater benefits than being a generalist. I'd also like to see what other effects are tied to schools.


thejeff wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)
I really like the concept too, makes it seem and feel far more versatile than just adding 1.5 Str modifier when wielded in 2-hands.
It's more of a replacement for adding the 1.5 STR mod, right? That isn't in the rules as far as I can tell.

As far as I know, yes. Adding 1.5 Str to 2-handed weapons isn't in the Basic Rules doc.


Terquem wrote:

*twweeeeeeetttt* yellow flag thrown to the side

Raises arms in cross pattern, swiping both hands down in a choping motion, turning to the side, and making a kicking motion with the left foot, then placing both hands on hips while hopping up and down

from the anouncers booth

Oh, this looks bad, Bob. The ref is calling a fifty three post penalty for raising the Katana issue

That's right, Dave. We've seen this before in many threads. This thread is in real danger of being kicked to the curb

You said it, Bob. How many times can a poster be called on that before it becomes a technical foul?

Well, Dave, that all depends on the ref, if she doesn't stay right on top of that 53 post limitation for discussing the Katana in any way, it could go into overtime, and that risks a complete lock down. Back to our topic. Oh, it looks like the Generic Dungeon Master is stepping up to try and deflect the issue

Haha, nice. :-)

Still, I like it.


Threeshades wrote:
So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)

I really like the concept too, makes it seem and feel far more versatile than just adding 1.5 Str modifier when wielded in 2-hands. Plus I like they suggest that the long sword could serve as a Katana too


Torpedo wrote:

I received my hardcopy of the 13th Age Bestiary earlier this week. Saturday night I'm going to run another 13th Age session, a conversion of Paizo's "Hollow's Last Hope" module for new players. I'm replacing some of the encounters with new creatures from the Bestiary such as stirges, kobold shadow-warriors, and a redcap!

I love 13th Age. I hope the new players do also.

If 5e doesn't pan out, I'm really looking for a new RPG to try. I love 3.5 / PF and 4e but Im not sure Next will be accepted by my players (its been free til now so we've been playtesting) but I don't think it has the feel they're looking for. 13th Age has been said to have been a nice replacement for 4e with some touch up. Now I know its not the sae and I knkw there are MANY different elements, but is the feel similar? By feel, I mean does it feel like Im playing a hero from 1st level and is combat engaging and thorough?


Scott Betts wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
4E died in 2012 and the playtest started.
Calling 4e "dead" in 2012 is overstating things. It wasn't receiving regular print releases but was still receiving active support, including through new organized play campaigns. Over the last couple of years we've seen a transition from supporting 4e, to supporting both 4e and 5e, to supporting only 5e in the last few months.

Last time I looked, Dungeon and Dragon stopped in December of 2013 with new items and paragon paths and adventures. So technically 4E stopped being supported only for the past 7 months.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel Golarion is pretty much Forgotten Realms lite. It's pretty much the "...and the kitchen sink." setting that Forgotten Realms is but without the thousands of years of lore and history FR has or cool things like Zhentarim, Undead nations, or Shades.


Pan wrote:
Diffan wrote:

At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.

This is the biggest stickler for me and am pretty sad they didnt put it on a dial. Maybe the PHB/DMG will give me some options to mod this unwanted feature.

Auxmaulous's idea of X/day sounds reasonable. Much like various Pathfinder classes have. An easy houserule if anything.

Pan wrote:
diffan wrote:


Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.

I am 100% with you on BA. In fact, I would say its the crown jewel of 5E.

I think it does help the game in the long run, especially with keeping monsters relevant for longer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.

It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.

Actually, uh, yeah. *raises hand*

Am I terrible for admitting that?

Haha, not at all. Hell I've been saying that since I opened up the 4E PHB in 08'. It also shows just how important 1st impressions are and how something as simple as layout and colors can skew people's opinions.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Diffan wrote:
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just...

Not to speak for Auxmaulous, but for me it's a matter of quantity of house rules rather than difficulty of individual house rules. For example, making 3.x play the way I want requires a lot of house rules, while making TSR D&D play the way I want requires...well, I don't think that's possible because I'd end up literally rewriting the entire game.

PS: Thanks for your rundown of 5e 4e-isms!

No problem, they're just things that I've noticed that appear to work in similar fashion to 4E when we were playtesting. But I guess your right in that if somethings are ingrained with the system and if it's harder to remove / rewrite then it's easier to just play something else. Perhaps 5E's mechanics are simpler to remove than previous editions?


Auxmaulous wrote:
Diffan wrote:
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.

I'm a 4e naysayer (a bigger 3rd ed naysayer actually - that was the beginning of the decline imo) and I like basic as a starting point - but everything you listed IS a problem for me.

The difference here is that these problems are actually workable from this lowered baseline than anything I could do with a 3rd ed/PF based high powered default and number assumptions already built into system.

I am going to fix:

[snip]

So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to strip out to get the game I want.

Honestly, this could be done with 4E and 3E with little fuss. I think that perhaps your more willing to mod this version than others?

I mean, for 4E to reflect some of the significant changes you suggest, it would take about the same to get working.

Healing Surges would be greatly reduced and remove full overnight healing to something less significant.

At-Will spellcasting (X/per day or X/per encounter)

Include Racial Penalities

Include Alignment restrictions / Race restrictions

Paladin smites (or even spell/prayers that use radiant damage must target evil)

Rogues need special ways to obtain Combat Advantage

Expand Skills

Remove Immediate Reactions / No Action attacks and spells full bar OR make them a standard action to use.

In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just play older systems? And this isn't a post to tell you *NOT* to play 5E or to change to to your liking, I'm just curious as to why it's easier or OK to change 5E but not go to the same lengths with 4E or 3E?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cascade wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

...

There is to much 4E in 5E though I think to really drop large amounts of $$$ on it.

Really?

Are we talking about the same game?
Each version of NEXT that I've played couldn't be more opposite of 4e.

• HD healing = Healing Surges.....sorta

• Overnight full healing = 4E style

• Short Rest abilities = Encounter Powers.....again sorta

• At-will spellcasting (Cantrips / Orisons) = At-Will spells

• No Alignment mechanics / restrictions

• No racial ability score penalties

• Shortened Skill list akin to 4E's instead of the vast 3.5 list

• Rogue's Sneak Attack happens without any "sneak" required.

• Paladin smites work against anything (from the playtest anyways).

• Ritual spells = pretty much what 4E did.

In short, many of the 4E-isms have remained but received a "old school" paint job and don't call out game-ist elements like "squares" or "Push, Pull, Slide". Additionally they went back to the older wording for things like adventuring day instead of Encounters.

Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.

It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:

5th edition of D&D is the 5th edition of D&D.

If someone invited me to play D&D I would ask which edition. I would avoid 4e and 5e and play 2e, 3.X and PF. 1e would be played out of curiosity as I never played it. Supposed to be similar to 2e.

Exactly. I need to know which version a person is going to try running. I have a few friends that play all the editions and I pretty much will bow out of any attempt at anything TSR related. Just not my cup of tea. So to me, it's important to clarify that the group is running 2E AD&D or 1st because then I can plan on doing something else with my time.

Somewhat the same here. I'll play anything at least once if a friend is running it, but which edition and what level we're starting at suggests my attitude regarding chargen and the game.

Playing low level TSR D&D? I know not to take the game too seriously, and I won't bother thinking about my character's personality until and if he survives a few levels. Beer 'n' pretzels game.

Playing low level 3.x? Again, don't bother thinking about characterization. Instead, brush up on my system mastery!

Playing mid+ level? Might be worth thinking about personality and character history, but there will still be plenty of arbitrarium to mentally prepare for.

Playing 4e? Probably worth showing up to game day with a full character, and chances are good that I'll want to stay for more than one session.

That's pretty much where I stand though I give you credit for playing TSR D&D regardless of level.

As for how this stands with 5E, I've found that low level isn't terribly deadly (with HD healing, full overnight healing, and some cleric spells) and that the game sort of stays the same over the course of the game. Now we did run the Tomb of Horrors at 10th level and I had 1 PC die, however that was far more his fault after I had said "Are you sure you wanna do this?". Normally that gives them pause and many times it's for good reason. This time, however, it was a Shrug and plops on this really bad Crown. He touches the crown with the sceptor and it falls off (no problem). He puts it on again and tries the other side.....disintegrated.... oops! Still, it was sorta funny.


Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Now that the Basic rules are available for free, and you have had the chance to look it over once or twice, how do you feel about it? What are your thoughts?

Personally, I'm OK With the rules. They resemble the playtest rules fairly well with slight alterations here and there. My group, while trying the playtests, were "meh" on it. I think we'd have fun (and had fun with the playtest) but I'm not sure if it's something they'll want to invest their time in. Right now we currently have a few v3.5 campaigns to finish up, a Pathfinder campaign to finish up, an a few 4E campaigns to finish up.

Some of the things that intrigue me:

• Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.

• Rituals - This is something ported from 4E (well, I think it originally came from an Unearthed Arcana source) and it's something that I really like. No mage wants to waste a precious spell slot prepping a spell that will, most likely, not be used but it's nice to have as a backup.

• Module Healing Rate - This is one of those "iffy" topics that everyone has a different opinion on. Some want "gritty" healing and some like "non-gritty" healing. Personally I'm a fan of overnight healing because it means that I don't have to put unnecessary time restraints on my dungeons and can keep the pace going well.

• No forced Alignment Mechanics - This is one of the many reasons I avoid TSR games and feel obligated to change all my v3.5 / PF ones. The idea that deities don't have their own champions seems silly to me. 4E removed alignment mechanics and so does Next. Of course anyone can add them in if they want and I'm cool with having mechanics thrown in from the DMG to enhance other people's games.

• At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.


137ben wrote:
3.5 monk is really good after the errata. The point of confusion is that they changed the name of the monk class to 'unarmed swordsage';)

Very true. Now I want to play a Vow of Poverty Unarmed Swordsage!!


goldomark wrote:

5th edition of D&D is the 5th edition of D&D.

If someone invited me to play D&D I would ask which edition. I would avoid 4e and 5e and play 2e, 3.X and PF. 1e would be played out of curiosity as I never played it. Supposed to be similar to 2e.

Exactly. I need to know which version a person is going to try running. I have a few friends that play all the editions and I pretty much will bow out of any attempt at anything TSR related. Just not my cup of tea. So to me, it's important to clarify that the group is running 2E AD&D or 1st because then I can plan on doing something else with my time.

Like Matt Tomason said: "There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with edition wars, in as much as it's perfectly okay to love one edition of the game and hate another." which is very true. In my instance the entire line of a specific companty (TSR) is something that I avoid and that's OK. The problem starts when I attempt to make my beef with the people who play TSR versions of the game.


Zardnaar wrote:
Stick vow of poverty on a wild shape Druid using natural spell= lolz. Note I hate Natural spell and have banned it from the table.

That'd actually be pretty funny to watch. Hell, I might even try that on some unsuspecting DM who runs v3.5.

Zardnaar wrote:

The monk is just a crap class in most versions of D&D and is a waste of a class and that is before you consider the genre.

Sadly it's true. As much as I like the feel and archetype the Monk is attempting to emulate, it often falls flat due to the system's limitations. In v3.5 one way I was able to help it out was give it a Fighter's Base Attack Bonus and changed the Flurry of Blows progression.

4E's Monk attempt was much better, giving them movement abilities in addition to a nice strike feature and burst attacks.

5E's Monk, from the playtest, didn't do too bad. My friend played on for a while in one of the playtest adventures and did pretty amazing until one of our PCs (who died and was instead roleplaying a Kobold that we rescued) ended up turning on us and shooting the monk in the back of the head with a crossbow. So lets hope that they continue with that version, I liked that one of the options was an Avatar: The Last Airbender version with elemental attacks.

1 to 50 of 818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.