|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
All 18's across the board?!! Wow, that's sorta crazy. No wonder they feel weak, since they're pretty much superheroes (stat-wise) early on. Well if they're feeling too weak, you could throw easier enemies at them but make their significance to the story higher. And throw lots at them that make combats that much more grand. I mean a 3d4 burning hands spell looks a lot better when it wipes out 5-7 goblins compared to 1 orc.
So with all the Martial / Caster discrepancy threads coming in I figured that I delve into probably is one of the most systemic problems facing Martials with v3.5 and Pathfinder. The two being a Full-Attack action and descending attack bonuses. Now this isn't just a problem for Martials as all classes are affected by this to some degree however I feel Martial classes are affected, by far, more than spellcasters since they are the ones that use that particular system the most.
The first problem is Full-Attack. One of the problems this creates is rooting a weapon-based user in place. It doesn't matter if they wield a sword or bow, they only ever benefit from one of their biggest class features when they're standing completely still or have only moved 5-ft. Now imagine if a spellcaster, to cast higher level spells (5th level +), was under the same limitation. I think the entire game would shift in a different way in the way it's played. This also creates a divide in melee-weapon choices, thus making reach weapons FAR more preferable to one-handed/light weapons IF you want to make sure enemies don't slip by you and conversely, weapons like the Spiked Chain become #1 overall.
I'm not entirely sure why the rule of Full-Attack is in place? I don't really understand what it's exactly trying to emulate within the narrative of the game world? Why can't a warrior move 30-ft. and swing a weapon in 6-seconds? Is the time constraint of a round that pivotal to maintain that ALL classes are reduced to move + 1 attack or don't move + ALL attacks? Why is it there?
The second problem are descending attack modifiers. As the AC is static, the modifier is static too and the die roll represents chance / luck / fate / etc. But then why make it further complicated by making iterative attacks worse? What exactly changed between attack #1 and #2 or #3 or #4? What is this specific rule attempting to simulate? I don't think it's endurance or fatigue because it's the same with the opposed hand (a hand that is often 'weaker' by comparison). Does the monster somehow react exceptionally fast after the first swing is created? Even if you take a more narrative view of multi-attacking (each attack isn't 1 swing but the whole round is a commotion of parries and thrusts) then descending attacks don't necessarily make much sense. In sword fighting it's often the 1st attack that is a decoy or ruse that will open up you opponent to secondary and iterative attacks. Except in D&D/PF-Land where the first attack is always swung hardest and all other attacks sort of become weaker and slower and less useful.
So what this boils down to is a Warrior/Martial character who has to stand-still (barring a 5-ft. step) to get his full benefit BUT even then that benefit is hampered as those last attacks become just hopefull-critial threats anyways.
Now imagine if both those rules were removed! Yep, what would happen if the Martial / Warrior didn't have to stand in a 5-ft. area to be a Weapons-Master? What would happen if ALL of their attacks were accurate (and deadly)?
Now one serious downside to removing these restrictions is that you have to remove them from everyone. That means creatuers like Dragons and Hydras and the like can make all their attacks, fly, and be destructive forces of nature in their own right. Well, honestly, I'm OK with that. Dragons are scary dangerous and walking into it's DEN to throw down should be a sure-fire way to get eaten. If a Hydra has come upon you in surprise, best to scatter and used Ranged options until it's close to death. It would change the way the game is played but I think that change is ultimately for the better.
I'm not entirely sure you need something home-brewed?
I'm not sure why they don't? I've used that, and its predecessor the Time of Battle, extensively and I've yet to encounter any sort of broken shenanigans that I often see with simple spellcasters. Its a fun supplement and a reason why I still occasionally play Pathfinder
This is pretty spot on from my experiences as well. In addition to all of that the system itself is pretty hard to weapon-based classes as well. Descending attack bonuses, full-round attacks being the two major hindrances.
Possibly, it really depends on what you're looking for in an RPG. Saying the system more smooth is sort of hard to determine because if you're already geared towards the micromanaging nature of Pathfinder then you only notice a lack of it in 5e as there are FAR less fiddly bits in that system. For some, those fiddly bits are what drives the fun of the game where as for others it's more of a burden.
If you have a better understanding of the two systems, would you either point me to a link that describes the differences or would you take a few moment to quickly point out the finer points of 5th edition?
Magic is more limited in the later stages, gaining only a few spells from 6th through 9th level. Magic is also limited because of the Concentration mechanic. Because of this, magic-users aren't slapping multiple stacking spells to own encounters so quickly.
There is more emphasis on encounters and short rests compared to an all-day or X/day limit. Even spellcasters get benefits with short rests.
Healing doesn't require a spellcaster OR days of rest to regain due to full HP regain and Hit Die healing.
Many unnecessary restrictions were removed from hindering weapon-based classes. Example: Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require feats or stat requirements; you can move-attack-move without a feat; no more god-awful Full-attack action, no more lengthy feat chains to get one good benefit.
Magic items take a back seat to character power, no longer required to possess 15 magical items just to keep up with the maths. Also, maths hacked down to normal levels so we don't have monsters with AC 45, +57 to attack & dealing 235 points of damage a turn.
Death is slightly harder to come by but much more permanent.
There aren't ridiculously obvious trap choices to get fooled by.
What does that feat do?
In 4e it allows you to use another stat besides Strength for Melee Basic Attacks however the damage is only 1/2 the modifier.
In 5e it adds +1 to the stat if your choice (to a Max of 20) and you can use that stat to make melee weapon attacks. The damage is still only 1/2 the modifier. So a Paladin could take the feat and use Charisma for melee attacks or a Wizard could use Intelligence.
Overall me and my group are having fun with 5e. We're currently playing through the Tiamat adventure and while we're only 1st level, its been entertaining. Its quite easily replaced 3.5/PF in our rotation of games so now it's either 4e or 5e. Couple hours of things that I feel have worked well...
• bounded accuracy
We've added a few elements from 4e like Melee Training feat and they have worked out rather well.
Why is it that the Paladin and Ranger always get royally shanked when it comes to their spellcasting in 3.5? I mean it's bad enough that they're consistently tier 4 and 5 classes to begin with due to their extremely specific class features and the next-to-zero aid in spellcasting doesn't help them out at all. At the very least I'd give them half the amount of points the Bard gets. Really, anything to help them out because they struggled so bad in this edition.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Big corporations are the bane of RPG's and Hasbro is no exception.
Why? By all accounts 5E is doing exceedingly well. 4E did exceedingly well at first go, and many believe 3E sold extremely well too. So if by "Bane" you mean making lots of profit, then......sure?
Forever Slayer wrote:
I believe D&D would be better off in the hands of a smaller company who does not see D&D as a mega money maker but as a table top game that may not earn you billions, will earn you a nice profit while giving gamers the game they want.
They did, back in 2000. It's called the OGL. Your welcome.
Forever Slayer wrote:
I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would continue to work on a brand to make it larger than it has. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to make it more interesting to people who might not ever have gamed before. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to do more with the brand other than basically sit on it for coppers a day. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to branch into other spheres of the entertainment industry so that we can enjoy D&D-ish things in addition to just the TTRPG side of it.
To me those are all great things to strive for. They've hit some set backs, yes but I think they're learning.
Core is difficult since a lot of the better feats resides in other supplements or even in Dragon magazine. That being said I'd go with Fighter 4/ Rogue 16. You'll still get 4 attacks per turn and you'll amp up your damage by making attacks with Sneak Attack.
Stats (25 pts)
I'm not sure if this thread is still relevant but I'll throw in my 2cp.
Lets see, as a Human Monk you'll get (not including bonus feats)---
Human - Improved Initiative
The last two are pretty much filler. Same thing with Blind-Fight. Being blind really sucks so being able to roll an extra d20 is really nice to have when magical items aren't forthcoming.
As for Stats: 20,18,16,16,16,10
Without any magical aid @ 20th level:
The "feeling" of D&D, for me, is pretty general because I tend to think of D&D as the Original trope Fantasy RPG. Other games need to distance itself from D&D, not the other way around. Because of that, I tend to D&D a very large margin of variation. Things that stick out as distinctly D&D are:
• Wizards use Intelligence and spellbooks to ready and cast their spells. Every edition so far as had this feature.
• Fighters are tough, weapon-specializing warriors that excel in combat. AD&D and 4E (and to an extent 5E) did this pretty well while 3E, v3.5, and PF need specific builds to make this true (mostly due to excelling in combat part).
• Clerics are mortal instruments of their deities and channel their divine power in wondrous displays of magics and miracles. Again, every edition so far has had this feature.
• Rogues and Thieves are cunning knaves who use a specific set of weapons and tools for unscrupulous acts. Every edition has met this so far.
• Monsters should include Dragons, Mindflayers, and Beholders.
Perfection........? Now THAT is the real head scratcher
Some of the stuff I've incorporated:
• Starting HP = Constitution score. Hit Die + Con modifier at every level thereafter.
• Ported over 4E's Melee Training feat, which now grants a +1 bonus to one Ability score of your choice (without going over 20) and you now use that particular score's modifier when rolling for weapon attacks. You only deal half the modifier's number in damage (rounded down). So a Cleric who choose Melee Training (Wisdom) gets +1 to his/her Wisdom score and say they now have a Wisdom 17 (+3), they would add +1 to weapon damage rolls.
• Daggers are more deadly when used in close combat such as grappling, increasing their damage die to d8.
• I'll probably also convert more 4E powers into maneuvers for the Battle Master to pick, as well as anyone who grabs the maneuver-based feat.
• Figuring out a homebrew for the Warlord as well.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Just remember that 5th Edition does not need the crazy bonuses that 3.5 and Pathfinder use. Magic bonuses per item cap at +3 for a reason and the system is meant to be low magic when it comes to items. You could make masterwork weapons cost half the price of a +1 magic weapon, since masterwork only gives you the bonus on the hit and not damage. Masterwork armor is more of a problem, since it would be identical to +1 magic armor, just not being magic.
Masterwork armor in 3e/v3.5/Pathfinder just gives reduces the armor check penalty by 1. So 5e's Masterwork armor could remove Disadvantage on Stealth checks or maybe lower the Strength requirement to wear it properly?
Well a simple port from 3e is easy enough, just adjust the prices to reflect the quality of the weapon. Another idea is to make all +1 items non-magical and anything +2 (or greater) or that has a special effect magical so there is a distinction.
I wouldn't say it's a crappy game to go with just the basics, especially when there's a significant portion of the community who doesn't want to delve into the multitude of additional options the PHB has. A DM can have the players download the basic rules while they buy the DMG and then go from there. And if the DM wants to gradually add more content like additional sub-paths, more spells or classes or races, it's pretty easy to do.
Basically it's all in how much you're looking to put into your game. For myself, I'd be happier with the full rules bit I've run a few basic games and they're just as fun.
The way I look at it is like this, D&D is an exception-driven system. Specific beats general and the TONS of specific modifiers, rules, and exceptions that it makes it almost not ever try something you're specifically not build for. Have you ever seen people in 3.5/PF attempt to trip someone else when they weren't equipped with a trip - specific weapon and/or have the Improved Trip feat? My guess is no or it's only done sparsely because the penalties and repercussions of trying it without the feat is a near waste of your turn. To me, that's problematic. I'd rather not have penalties and repercussions for basic actions and allow people who delve into those specific mechanics the greater benefit.
14 sided die wrote:
ONe thing I noticed about 4e was that it was really easy to pick up and play, and to teach to beginners, and didn't require a huge level of system mastery, since everyone works off basically the same mechanics
My experience as well. During a summer two years ago I had a series of friends-of-friends stop by to game occasionally and they never played before. With 2 sessions they picked up the game quite easily and was having a blast, even when one of them died.
Yep, the focus of the spotlight is about role within the round instead of the encounter. For example in 3e if there was an encounter that featured lots of undead or 1 powerful undead the Cleric had the potential to completely obliterate the enemy on his turn, sometimes before anyone else acted. In 4e his radiant spells help immense but the others at the table still get to engage too.
They effectively removed "I Win" buttons for the most part from the game. Still, wizards are unparalleled in terms of monster lock-down and single target penalties as well as mob/minion destruction but they still need help in other areas. Further, by allowing everyone a chance to try skills, you remove the requirement of certain classes to be in the party, like always having a Rogue to picks locks or always a cleric to heal as anyone can get Thievery skill via class, feat, and racial selection as well as other non - casters being able to heal (aka Warlord)
That's my understanding as well. In my sandbox games the PCs usually start out in an area where the monster threat is minimal in terms of power level. Going into the wilderness and off the beaten path, however, can lead to unexpected dangers like Trolls, Orc warbands, hydras, dragons, and so forth. It's important for PCs to get an idea of their surrou and the local knowledge of the area, going so far as tales, rumors, and superstitions.
These things might be true or an exaggeration or completely baseless. They don't know but for sure it's not always going to be rolled out like a nice, box - shaped encounter with the exact number of monster to XP ratio. It's gonna be what is appropriate for the situation. A group who raids a Kobolds lair isn't fighting 4-6 Kobolds for every 2 to 3 rooms. If they're not cautious then they could awaken the whole tribe and that would be really bad for them.
I place encounters that are consistent with the world-view and not based on PCs level or the WoW style of zones. The players can, quite easi5, enter an area that far surpasses their level or they can get into a scrap with a group of lv. 2 Kobolds when they're Paragon tier. It depends on what they're doing, where they want to go, and how well they follow up on, ignore, or cautiously circumvent rumors the people they interact with know of.
If there's a fable of an ancient and Evil spirit haunting a nearby house they can investigate but there's no guarantee it's level - appropriate.
I think they want 3PP support because, heck, 4E even had 3PP support. However I feel they don't want a repeat of what happened with Paizo in the off-chance they change up systems in X-amount of years. And to both provide 3PP support AND protect themselves later on, they need to be very specific on what gets released so 3PP needs to do more leg work mechanics wise.
Ah, the OGL "Keeping gaming companies married to a specific rule-set since 1999!"
Well I for one am glad WotC hasn't released an OGL yet. I think they'd be better served by up-dating and reviving their GSL to be more expansive. If they allow their basic rules to be expanded upon by 3PP, that would be a good start too. But, in all honesty, people have already been using the Basic rules for creating and converting adventures to 5E for months now. And as far as I know the only things to be hit with C&D letters are on-line character builder programs that give out information beyond the Basic Rule-set. Something WotC has every right to protect.
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?
I suppose there is a really strong desire for "Gritty" style combat and, I'm assuming, to make entering combat a really tough choice regardless of level? With rules regarding losing limbs even a 10th level Fighter with 75 HP is still wary of Kobolds and Goblins if they score a critical hit and chop off their arm.
Personally, I don't think D&D is the genre or game overall to mimic this particular style.
I'm not sure I follow? If someone narrates HP loss as broken bones, wouldn't that also impact nearly everything they did until healed? And at what point does the damage taken = broken bones? If a character with 35 HP takes 15 damage, is that sufficient enough? And if so, what happens when that character tries to attack with that arm or use their reaction to block (via Shield Master feat)? Are added penalties added when they try to climb or use the arm in any way?
I just don't think D&D's HP system is designed well enough to accomplish the gritty feel many people seem to want from it. Falling off a 40 ft cliff SHOULD negatively impact your character for a long while, regardless of level, but in D&D-land so long as you have 1 HP remaining, you can climb that cliff again, swim, fight, drink and carousel around for as long as you want. Which makes constraints on healing seem overly penalizing for seemingly zero gain.
Battle Master fighter, yes to a degree. The biggest thing about the Warlord in 4E was that it used Intelligence as a secondary stat AND they could opt to use their turn to allow other people to attack all the time (instead of being tied to Short Rest mechanics). As for the Valor Bard, not really considering that the Bard is magical in nature and the Warlord isn't. I could reflavor the spells to be non-magical but that sort of defeats the purpose IMO.
Obviously, some would beg to differ.
If I'm not mistaken that was the way it originally was in the Playtest, that if you wanted to spend your Hit Die, you needed a Healer's Kit to do so. Now it just helps stabilize people. Though I'm not entirely sure what this houserule is supposed to do or represent?
Over the years I've houseruled v3.5 and Pathfinder a LOT, including things like armor as DR, Wound/Vitality system, disease tracks, and other things to the like. So far I haven't house-ruled much of 5E because I really haven't delved too deeply into the system for something to come up. Everything appears to be working as intended so far "officially".
I think this goes to illustrate the difficult position Wizards is in when they first created this edition. I will say that wizards has always promoted the idea of making a game the way you want to certain degrees.
A few additional "Favorite things"
• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.
• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.
• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.
• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.
You're right, published adventures were pretty ridiculous with throwing in material from other supplements that any given DM might not have access to. For things like feats and class features there were times they'd reprint the feature in the monster Stat block or on the same page for ease of reference, though spells were another matter. At the least we'd get a small subscript abbreviation of the boom it was in. But not so with 5e.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
How many people are really confused by a feat or two and 1-3 spells and/or maneuvers? I think the majority of people buying into 5e are going to be experienced players to which a few added options aren't player - breaking choices that will leave people dumbfounded from the get-go.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Barbarian certainly feels distinct from the others, since it gets Rage right out of the gate. Ranger and Paladin get unique at level 2, when they get spells. Is that really any worse than 3.5, where paladins have to wait until level 4 for spells and 5 for a mount?
Barbarians ALL feel the same out of the gate barring weapon choices. I get that's the idea, just not a fan. As for the Ranger and Paladin, it's not worse but it isn't all that much better. I just like more options at earlier levels. A 4e Paladin got multiple choices and he felt like a divine warrior from the get go where's a 5E paladin just sort of doesn't
Do you criticize Pathfinder for that? I've never seen them reprint every single spell, feat, ability, etc. in their adventures.
Yep, and 3.5 too. However with both systems it isn't an issue anymore just because the game has been out since 2000 and 2008 respectively, giving DMs time to learn what the spells do, etc. That doesn't mean that an alternative solution wasn't there, it was, they just didn't utilize it.
And I'm not even saying they have to put FULL disclosure on every spell an enemy or NPC has access to in their write-up, just the most common ones that particular NPC/Enemy will bring to bear in combat.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
I get that, but you're missing the point that I have to look elsewhere from the monster description to get info on their actions in terms of their spells. It's annoying when every time the monster goes and I use a different spell, I have to look up range, duration, damage or effect before I can even figure out if that's a good choice at the time. It's an annoyance that could've been fixed.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.
Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.
Monsters having the full text of their available spells printed along side might have been done in 4th Edition, but it's never been done at any other time to my knowledge.
Correct, however I never liked it in those editions either. Having to do multiple page references for 1 monster is really annoying. It would have been better to say "These are his common spell attacks"
Firebolt: at-will, 120 ft., 1 trgt, +8 attack, 3d10 fire damage
Instead of just throwing out a dozen or so spells from the PHB that the DM now has to look up for their range, components, duration, effects, etc.
After doing a few sessions with the non-Playtest rules and having access now to the PHB (instead of just the Core material) there are a lot of good things that I like:
• Bounded Accuracy
Things that I'm not a fan of:
The last two supplements of Ravenloft I have was created by Sword & sorcery and I think was designed for 3rd Edition. Those two books were pretty awesome for drawing inspiration and a feel of dread. I'm actually look at them to build a 5e adventure from.