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

871 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.

Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.

Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.

That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 40 Kobolds and other mediocre monsters need to be in larger numbers to be a significant threat otherwise we get 3E's and 4E's syndrome of being able to sit down on the ground and let the monsters attacking you, only hitting 5% of the time, which is moronic and stupid yet works RAW.

Just look back at Lord of the Rings where they enter the Mines of Moria: Do you think a group of nine 10th level v3.5, Pathfinder, or 4E D&D characters would've even blinked an eye at the goblins running down the walls towards them in that scene? Nope, they would've laughed as the Fighter greater cleaved / Encounter-Daily powered to his hearts content, the Wizard would've been dropping 20' areas of goblins on whim with fireball, scorching burst, or a myriad of other AoE spells, and everyone else would be killing 2-3 goblins per turn all the while the Goblins would've all had approx. 5% chance to hit them. At least with 5th Edition such a scene is particular fearsome to adventuring parties of most levels barring heroes ramped up with magical gear (something not inherent with the system math).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I found 4E to be similar to AD&D in spirit. But I never met anyone who agreed with me, so no - I don't think it was supposed to be. I think that was just how I played it.
You aren't the only one. I know of several who have that same opinion.

I too have seen this before from quite a few people in the online community.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Blazej wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
on the other hand, to those of who use it, its drips with flavour, ideas and great art. Gone is the ridiculous superhero art of PF

I was going to comment on how I liked the Monster Manual like many of the monsters that I wouldn't have expected to be in a primary Monster Manual, how I enjoy the way many of the powers were built (that aren't just advantage or disadvantage) like the medusa's gaze or how goblins are naturally good at running and hiding with a small bit, but I stopped after seeing this.

Pen & Paper RPGs, where one can't exclaim their love for one game without taking a shot at another.

I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.

This is another one of my own opinions.

From what I saw, they had a key concept in mind. It didn't matter HOW MUCH feedback they got that was against it, that key idea did not change. Part of that idea was what eventually morphed into bonded accuracy, along with several other items in regards to the core mechanics.

I'm just not sure the online community is that much of a significant portion of players for the game, at least from a polling perspective or as any sort of gauge on things like mechanics. Sure, things like Damage-on-a-Miss was a contentious issue but was this representative of the community on the whole or just those specific people? It's hard to say IMO because it's a topic that I've ONLY ever seen argued on Forums and not real life. Same thing with topics like healing, powers, spell-per-day, Liner Fighter/Quadratic Wizard, 5-Min work days, etc.

I think the designers received the best information they could and that it correlated, to a degree, what they were already going with. And in all honesty just because a group of people (say, 3e fans for example) play and love 3E or PF doesn't necessarily mean they like things such as save-or-die spells, wealth-by-level, or the deluge of Feats and Prestige Classes.

You mention Bounded Accuracy and I think that's probably one of the BEST innovations for the edition. Even though I enjoy playing v3.5 and Pathfinder and 4E one of the biggest problems I had when looking at those systems is the ridiculous height the numbers reach. I do NOT NEED a Fighter with +45/+40/+35 attack modifiers that deals 70s, 80s, or 100s of points of damage or AC to reach the 50+ to feel "Epic". I feel it was done because someone back in the 3.0 system creation thought "Oh, higher numbers means I can feel BIGGER and BADDER!" and all I felt it did was put an arbitrary and fictitious strain on class and monster design. Monsters in the CR 18 - 20 range just got Natural Armor +20 because the Fighter got +18 to 20 BAB.

Not only that but it completely removed these characters (and monsters) from the "commoners" of the settings. Even when reading novels like the Forgotten Realms epic heroes had flaws and could be felled by things like common weapons and people. In v3.5 I can make a 12th level Fighter that literally just sits on the ground why 9 orcs beat on him and they'll only damage him 5% of the time. That's just moronic.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
There were several things in the forums discussing the rules that showed an overwhelming desire for certain things...but when you look at what happened it was as if this feedback was blatantly ignored in surveys, forums, and questionnaires.

Again, forum communities are not indicative of the overall attitude towards the edition, let alone specific mechanics. Going from what Mearls stated, it appeared from looking at the forums the community was "divided" however when looking at the survey data there was a lot more things the player base had or wanted in common.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
I think if they had actually listened more to the feedback instead of what they wanted to absolutely have in it, we'd have gotten a game that was more a blend of 3e and 4e than something new that came out of their beta. I mean, point blank, those who were involved were all 3e and 4e players as the majority, and they were all trying to push their ideas from each of those respective editions.

Its funny you say this because I see a certain amount of people saying there's too much 4E (or insert the edition you didn't like here____) among community posters here, and in other places. TO me I think that means they did something right. Besides "powers" there's a LOT of 4E design in this edition. There's also quite a bit of 3E elements in the game as well, even looking at the books one could jump to the notion that it "feels" like 3E.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
If they actually had listened and changed it accordingly, it would have been a pure blend of 3e and 4e without any of this limited stuff of +6 total over 20 levels as a bonus...or skills being handled like they are.

Perhaps the majority of people who play and like 3E/4E actually think +20 over 20 levels (or the silliness of the BAB system) was not only unnecessary but perhaps even disliked? Further, I've seen a LOT of people complain about skill ranks and points and how the classes were really deprived of points in both 3E and Pathfinder. The fighter getting 2 per level? Really? That's pretty terrible. I'm glad they got rid of points and I really hope they don't show up again in a WotC D&D system. This isn't GURPS.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
They literally made up the rules and asked how people liked them. They took no advice on what NEW rules to implement. Instead, they just removed rules that they saw an overwhelming majority disliking...but otherwise, making up their own rules instead of taking suggestions of what others were suggesting, at least if you looked at the forums and the actual rules that were being suggested.

Well yeah but the rules changed pretty significantly as the process progressed over two years. I still have the very first playtest packet where there were only pre-generated characters. BOY do they look different than ones you can make now with the PHB. The rules, the idea about powers and feats and terminology all changing. The change to the classes and races are ALL different. And it was predominantly due to the feedback from playtesters. If people didn't playtest it and give feedback, why should their preferences be catered to?

GreyWolfLord wrote:
It SHOULD have been something that looked a lot like PF but with a LOT of 4e stuff in there (maybe the defenses as 4e instead of saves...or with the HP boosters, or a second wind for all classes...or other items). That is if what was being discussed would have been reflected in their actual rules and utilized to actually create the rules, rather than only delete the stuff a huge number of people didn't like and discard the rest of the feedback in favor of their own rules they were writing in house.
I'm glad it doesn't look anything like Pathfinder. For one, we already HAVE Pathfinder, and for free to boot. Why would I shell out hundreds of dollars for a system that only has some 4E-stuff bolted onto a d20/SRD system. No thanks, I don't need to pay money for that and I think a lot of others would feel the same. On the other hand, 5E looks like they took ideas and philosophy from a variety of editions to make their system. It has 4E-isms in there along with 3E-isms and 2E-isms, and 1e-isms.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I actually think PAIZO is more responsive to the feedback then what I saw with WotC...

Personal opinion of course.

How can any of us really know? We saw the surveys and we saw the results. The community is just one aspect of the equation. I think WotC knows the numbers better and wrote their rules accordingly. Sure, the designers had an agenda and idea going into 5E and I think they used survey feedback to tweak these ideas into the form the designers and players both wanted. I can only say that the overall feedback from Amazon reviews and the community (here and on other sites) is generally positive and receptive of this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

For someone who just started with PF, I expect that they would probably open the NPC codex and perhaps find something that fits, or simply use the monsters from the bestiary to create encounters using the monsters as is.

Quick, easy, and you don't really have to do that much math.

Which is fine if you follow the model of going up in level means specific creatures and races become a cake-walk to overcome and greater threats are from large or larger monsters, which now become common place.

But there are going to be homebrewed campaigns that don't follow this model. There are or will be DMs who want races like Goblins and Orcs to be the center-piece villainy of their campaign and it's more difficult to do that when PCs gain power yet the monsters shown quickly approach the point where they're effectiveness wears off. Personally, I'm not a fan of that. It puts too much focus on the PCs becoming "Super" heroes as they gain levels in a too steep vertical power jump as compared to a more lower, horizontal slope that 5E aims at.

ie. as PCs get stronger the default is the challenges they face have to be bigger and more elaborate and on a bigger scale to compete. Orcs and Goblins and oozes don't cut it and are replaced with Dragons, Devils, and Liches.

GreyWolfLord wrote:


Heck, I've been playing PF for a little bit, and that's what I do already.

You don't have to spend any more time on encounter creation than other editions if you don't want to.

Sure unless I want an encounter to be specific and nothing in the Bestiary or NPC list suffices. Then what? I either come up with something that already incorporates what's already created OR I have to then take time to make it work. Sometimes the Bestiary doesn't have the sufficient creatures to fit in what I'd want them to do.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Plus, if it really was that much trouble, someone probably could take a monster or NPC and reflavor them into that type of creature without having to create them from the ground up...at least that's what I would do.

I do that as well.....now.....that I've had 14 year (and 5 with PF) to tinker with the system to know how and what I want it to do. I also don't hold my monsters to the same standards as PCs, which is basically what I'm saying here. IN 3x/PF the idea is that all monsters, PCs, and NPCs share the same building blocks of creation and for me, as the DM, that can put unnecessary constraints on the type of monsters or encounters I'd like to run. 4E, and to a slightly less extent 5e, have the same method of monster design being that they don't have to specifically conform to having X-feat, Y-Class, or Z-Race combo to achieve what I want them to do.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
If one doesn't want to spend a ton of time creating NPC's and special enemies, why do it? There are tons of tools in PF that I've found to make it easy, quick, and painless.

Because I don't think the tools make it quick, easy, or painless.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Addendum: Now 4e DOES have some rather easy to use monster creation rules for specific creatures, if you want...but it still takes someone with a little experience to be able to balance it out against a party. A novice may create one that wipes the party or is wiped easily.

Compared to 3E/PF I've personally found the process far less time consuming and more in-line with what I want my PCs to face. For example, taking my ferocious Orc Berserker from earlier had I wanted to have him face 4 PCs (or, 5 as 4E goes) then I simply tag on a Solo role, make him a Brute (lots of HP to soak up multiple rounds of combat), and express his damage total based off his level. His attacks could be dealing 2d10 + 8 and knock people down at-will and he'll probably get a two-attack feature plus probably a burst 1 feature. Add in an aura 1 that drops defenses and have him get +5 to Saving Throws and 2 Action Points and I'm basically done.

In 3.X/PF I have to make sure he has X, Y, and Z feat to use two large Battleaxes. He'll have to have specific stats for those Prerequisites too. He'll have to have quite a few magical weapons and items to defend against the array of magical might a party will bring against him and a way to threatening multiple foes in a standard action and I'll have to add class levels which in turn adds in all sorts of other class features that might or (more likely won't) be important for the encounter at hand. NOt to mention the skill ranks per level and you can't forget about Skill Synergy. And of course a good portion of his stats will change when I make him "rage" which ups everything Strength/Constitution-based by 2.

Basically there's a LOT more involved with just tacking on a few PC levels onto a normal Orc Warrior than there is just making an standard 4E Orc into a Solo encounter.

GreyWolfLord wrote:


PF also has tables which list average HD and HP as well as other things, and in some ways is equally as easy if you use it to create a unique monster. Just like 4e though, you could wipe the party or have the party wipe it if you are a novice using it.

I've played both systems so I'm probably biased in my opinion on the difficulty of both systems. Suffice to say that I felt it was easier to have unforeseen TPKs due to the danger of spells and Critical hits in 3.x/PF than in 4E.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
I rarely use the PF thing if I don't have to, but in a crunch, when running APs or something where I don't want to look up the stats of a monster right then (I don't take all the bestiaries with me), and trying to play it off the hoof...then it's a great way to do something on the fly.

Yea, I've used that before and it works in a pinch. Similar to 4E's compendium where if I want a specific power or ability, I'll just type in the level and role and grab something appropriate and just reflavor. Basically once the DM gets familiar with the system and is comfortable with the adjudication, coming up with stuff off the cuff becomes an easier trend. I just feel I achieved that level of comfort far faster with 4E than I did with 3.5 or Pathfinder. 5E is coming in quite closer to 4E than PF in this regard as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.

There is nothing complex about it. Like TAC0 was never complex. It was math a 12 year old should have been able to do. It can be long. That I agree with, but like anything, with practice you start to know the stuff and creation takes a lot less time.

But we all heard this when 4e came out. "Monster making has never been so simple". Yet it wasn't enough to detrone 3.X.

I wonder if the whole "it takes too long to make a monster" is really just a complaint of a vocal minority on the internet.

After 8 years most people who often DM'ed the system were used to the work of making Monsters and NPCs so it wasn't as long drawn out process. However that doesn't mean easier monster/NPC creation wasn't a desired thing. For me it was less about the time involved vs. the complexity required in making them actually viable in the game. Try making an Orc Barbarian who dual-wields large great axes AND is suitable for a solo encounter vs. 4 PCs and you'll end up making him several levels higher and requiring him to have a plethora of magical gear just so he doesn't go down in the 1st round of combat. No thanks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I don't know how anyone can tell me that they didn't gut arcane casters.

Because they didn't start at pathfinder and build 5E from there. The whole gut/nerf/boost terminology makes no sense to me in this context.

I think high level casters are less powerful in 5E than in PF. It's the expectation that pathfinder should be treated as the "default" that I question.

It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.

I don't think they're asking that of us at all. They're putting out a product that they hope will cater to a multitude of groups for a multitude of reasons. Sure, they'd LOVE for you to abandon Pathfinder because they're competition however I'm certain they assume it's more likely that people will probably end up playing both.

Considering that both systems are pretty different no both mechanics and approach, they fill different niches for style of games off the bat. So for those time when a group is getting new people OR when someone isn't there or for the nights when you've only got a few hours to game and don't want to get into a lengthy campaign, D&D:Next is a great opportunity to indulge in the RPG world without having to put TONS of time in character creations or have fears of being completely over-shadowed by someone's System-Mastery created build.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Considering that most games of D&D revolve around the combat, when you have a character that is really falling behind on it simply for "backstory" it brings aches and actually ruins the mood and immersion of the game.

Please define "really falling behind". What does that even mean? Falling behind what, exactly? Is there some sort of measure PCs must maintain? If you mean losing a few points of DPR or a +1 or +2 to attack.....yeah for a LOT of people that's fine. Not everyone optimizes their character to the 100 degree for efficiency. And the ones that do don't complain about not being immersed.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


In most fantasy stories, the weapons with backstory, the ones inherited, were often legacies for a reason and were generally good. Outside of D&D, you rarely see old weapons get discarded consistently with the exception of rusty and broken standard weapons that were overused.

Did you ever think that the weapon was good simply because the one wielding it was a legend? Though I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic of role-playing?

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


For a game that is part roleplay, part tactical miniatures, most people don't want to have to shoot themselves in the foot just get a little bit of personal immersion only to be roflstomped by the rest of the in-game world that doesn't care about their meta-sacrifice.

Again, who's shooting themselves in the foot? And why would they be roflstomped in the game just because of the weapon (and subsequently, the backstory that goes along with it) they chose?

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Through Darwin's understanding of Natural Selection, we'll see that most players that continue will prefer to roleplay competent characters instead of cripples; while those who'd rather not focus on combat tend to drift to more rules light systems.

Lol, cripples? So by taking a -5 in DPR and a -1 to attacks (arbitrary numbers for a subjective argument) I'm now a cripple who apparently gets roflstomped because I shot myself in the foot for falling behind some unknown metric scale devised, most likely, from theorycrafting in a white-room by people who more than likely don't even play the game.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I would say the biggest emphasis of roleplaying in 5e as opposed to 3.x is that the focus in 5e is on actually playing the game, whereas in 3.x, playing the game is a minor addition hastily taped onto the REAL product...a character creation system.

That's a pretty darn subjective statement that is vastly more reflective of the individual player than the actual system, and I say this as someone who enjoys creating NPCs and extra characters for fun. So far I've already created about a dozen PCs with 5e and have only had the opportunity to play the "official" game a few times so far.

Character tweaking, mechanics digging, numbers finangling have ALWAYS been apart of the game, regardless if the system "promotes" it or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Southeast Jerome wrote:
dariusu wrote:


The consensus is character level with backup from twitter posts from the devs.[
I suppose there are good reasons for this from a mechanics standpoint, but it seems strange that a 16th level barbarian could take 1 level of wizard and suddenly be able to do 4d6 damage with ray of frost. What would be the downside for limiting cantrip scaling to combined caster level (as determined above) instead of total level?

The downside is that it becomes less and less important as a tool the higher level you go, penalizing multi-class characters on basic attacks. Cantrips whole point is to be the "go-to" when daily effects are entirely used up OR to be too big of a resource to utilize for the current situation. IF you scale it by caster level (by that particular class or CL overall, based on the Multi-class table) then multiclassing into a non-spellcaster class is always going to be an inferior choice (barring specifics).

So a Barbarian 10 / Cleric 1 gets cantrips. If they're based on the Cleric then it's almost 100% better to NEVER use your turn to cast a Cantrip and instead go with a weapon-based attack. Which begs the question: why are you multiclassing to begin with? Instead, if cantrips are tied to Character level, he can still feel like a cleric like one his peers on the basic level, however they still have LOTS more spells (and of higher level) than him, which separates the distinction.

Some people are fine with this, others (including myself) don't like the penalty. I'm glad cantrips scale with character level instead of caster level. In fact, I'm glad they practically removed Caster Level as a 'thing' for the majority of this edition overall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:


Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?

5th's seems more....realistic and in that sense, I feel 5E's art is better. I like 5E's Monster Manual better artistically than Pathfinder's Bestiary.

Quote:


Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?

Keeping spellcasting more reined in at the higher levels of play. It's not as balanced as 4E in the higher levels but then again, it wasn't designed to. It took more cues from 3E in this regard however they also lowered the overall amount of spells one can cast above 6th level and didn't give them anyways to increase that number. Also, spellcasting isn't as good because spells don't instantly increase with power as one levels up. You have to invest in which spells will do that.

Then there's Bounded Accuracy. This is REALLY the main reason why I'm looking for 5E to replace most 3E/PF games I run. The fact that modifiers aren't thrown into the stratosphere and lower level monsters say more relevant longer is a huge plus in my book.

Short Rest mechanics, while having the potential for problems, are always better (in my mind) than daily ones. So that a good portion of classes get these is a nice bonus.

Not tying Alignment into the mechanics of the game is pretty much a 100% step in the right direction when compared to Pathfinder as it still uses Alignment for restrictions on things like classes and prestige classes.

Ridding themselves of the difference between "full-round" and "standard" actions. The fact that Fighters in PF who move are reduced to 1 attack is simply terrible. Flat out. Add on the penalty that if they DO stick around and make a full-attack, their attacks get weaker is just more BS thrown on top. 5E gets rid of both these silly restrictions.

Quote:


Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?

The only thing that comes to mind is customization. I'm not a fan of the Multiclass system and I don't like that I can't swap a classes sub-paths around as I level up. In this area I think 3E and Pathfinder do a better job with mechanical representation for unique characters. Plus I hate that all classes get feats at different levels.

Quote:


Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?

Yep. Remove the 3-tierd BAB system for 1 standard, across the board version. Remove the Full-Attack action and allow classes that get multiple attacks to keep them AND move. Remove the moronic restrictions on Two-Weapon Fighting. Remove auto-scaling spell variables. Remove Bonus spells based on higher ability modifier. Give paladins more spells at earlier levels.

Quote:


Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?[/quote

Tweaks would probably work best, and time. With enough time and options, I can see 5E being a better product overall.


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."


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.


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'.


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.


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).


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Henry wrote:
Has anyone tried it yet? Is it any good vs Pathfinder? I really don't see the point in handing over yet MORE money to Hasbro who is treating D&D like a Wargame and churning out a new edition every few years. I'm sort of sickened by the same people who were so angry about 3.5 and 4th ed so close together who went to Pathfinder who are now turning around and giving money back to this new D&D. Unless its insanely good I don't see why you'd quit Pathfinder and go back to D&D.

Im going to answer your question honestly: because it's different, it scratches an itch neither Pathfinder (and by that extention 3.5) nor 4E can do. It's lighter, less complex, less bloated (numbers wise), less arbitrary, and more open to free-form. Further, I think it has the possibility of being easily portable to other supplements without a lot of work as well as being modular.

Additionally, 4e is no longer supported and I won't spend money on Pathfinder so what's left?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I think this is a good analysis. It hits on a lot the thoughts I was having about the new system. The lack of reliance on magic items is a huge plus for me with this system. As a GM I hate feeling like I need to give out stuff like cloaks of resistance, rings of protection, belts of strength etc.. just to allow the characters to supposably keep up with the math of the game.

YES! Magic items should be awe-inspiring. I think with the assumption of magical items being required in the game, even ones with just a +1 attached to them will carry significantly more weight within the world. Also, I think it's important for the DM to build up how important magical items are. The DMG should have a nice segment of including them and the consequences of doing so (in both releative power shift as well as making the PCs bigger targets for people who are now going to crave those magical items).

P.H. Dungeon wrote:


I definitely love the 20 attribute cap, and that players are forced to choose between a feat or an attribute boost.

At first I hated it because I felt that I'd always choose a feat and I'd be left out with the ability score bumps but with feat design being "super sized" I feel they're not as necessary. Want to be a good Two-Weapon Fighter? Just take 1 feat and there you are. No more plethora of feat-chains that take 1/4 of your character's progression to achieve just to start playing the sort of character you want.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:


The backgrounds and charts with the ideals flaws etc... were more interesting to me than I anticipated. I really hope they hook players into thinking more about PCs as characters and less about them as "builds." I find the focus on character optimization in Pathfinder and 4e really tiresome. However, I realize that it doesn't have to be the focus in those systems, but I notice it being really prevalent, and I would prefer to play a version of the game that moves away from that.

As someone who routinely creates "builds" and then creates a role-play around that, I agree. Another thing is that I already have systems to do the tinkering with, so 5E doesn't really need at address this aspect for me. If I want to get down into the nitty-gritty of Character Optimization then I have v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E to scratch that itch.

Also, what I'm going to start doing is have every player write down what their character's short term and long term goals are. A Fighter, for example, might have a short term goal of being accepted into the order of Purple Dragons of Cormyr and his longtime goal is to own an estate or castle and land to become a stronger leader within the country. A Rogue's short term goal might be to get into a local thieves guild and his long term goal might be to create multiple safe houses in the city to which he can store all sorts of his weapons, poisons, etc (the latter example reminds me of Brent Week's Night Angel Trilogy ). Basically thinking less about what sort of feats, powers, spells I'm getting next level and more about "I really need X-amount of gold to buy a small apartment so I can run operations from there to blanket this area"

P.H. Dungeon wrote:


One change that I'm hoping for in the DMG is an alternate xp system that moves away from xp for killing monsters. D&D is one of the only systems that awards xp nearly entirely for killing things. Pretty much every other game grants xp for accomplishing objectives. The D&D default xp system has a pretty profound affect, particularly on published adventures (e.g., pathfinder APs) because it forces the writers to add in extensive "filler encounters" just to ensure the appropriate xp is available. This can often have a negative impact on the pacing of the plot and can cause a storyline to drag out much longer than it should because its stuffed with extra meaningless encounters that really only exist to be source of xp. Sadly, even if the dmg provides an alternate xp system, it looks as though xp for killing things will continue to be the default, and thus will continue IMO to plague published adventures.

While I don't mind the XP progression chart in the basic rules I do remember seeing the DMG as a sort of "Hackers Guide" with lots of alternate tools provided to adjust your campaign accordingly. As for modules and XP, it's been a while since we ran PF but I was under the impression that you gain XP for doing things in the adventure that progress the story (like saving the townsfolk in area B4 will get everyone in the group 400 XP).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reason for the quick advancement is because the first three levels are largely meant as a tutorial for playing the game. The designers actually went on to say that after playing the game for a while advanced players will most likely start their characters at 3rd level (the point where many classes get their sub-path).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Because the point of tabletop RPGs is teamwork, and everyone using their strengths to complement each other. Unless we are playing Paranoia of course.

If I want to shine solo, I'll play a CRPG.

That is one of the reasons I don't play 4E at all. Everything is the same, just called differently.

I'm not really sure this post really makes sense with a post you just said in which casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials. If teamwork is required, something I actually agree with, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the characters have some parity and that the strengths of one are more than likely a weakness of another?

And if that's the case then why don't you think 4E achieved this? If you've played 4E then you'd be accustomed to seeing the stark differences in the capabilities of the classes, defined by specific roles they assume. Fighters, for an example, have pretty good crowed control but their damage is rather "meh" when compared to a class like the Rogue or Ranger. A Cleric can't match the Fighter OR Rogue/Ranger for power or damage BUT they desperately need him when monsters of darkness approach or when one of them is gravely injured. The wizard follows as someone who has excellent stopping power of powerful targets AND he can control the areas where battle is joined by area effects. Further, he's great at dealing damage to a group of foes at once. However he's extremely squishy and even a few hits can lay him low, so he needs the Fighter to keep people off his back.

Obviously this is my experience with the game and, for the most part, systems like v3.5 and Pathfinder hold to this model as well for a time. However beginning around 7th level and progressing into the mid- and late-tiered games both v3.5 and Pathfinder put HUGE emphasis on the need for magical aid and assistance at those levels. A party without the use of magic is nearly doomed to fail. However the revers isn't necessarily the truth for earlier levels of the game. A party consisting of a Beguiler (or even an Illusionist mage), Cleric, Druid, and Wizard will easily excel at 1st level and I'd dare say pretty much ROFLstomp most challenges of equal level far into the latter stages of the game.

A group consisting of a Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Barbarian will have an easy time in the first few levels, probably excelling in combat where our spellcaster party will have to take time and recoup their spells more often. But as the monsters they face gain a significant increase in power (to adjust for the assumption of magic) these characters face a fare greater likely hood of all dying due to a lack of aid.

Case in point, the idea of Teamwork is one that is collectively shared, however is has little bearing of the parity of characters that compose a team or party. Each characters should have some strengths to lend the group and sometimes those strengths are what might carry the whole group through an ordeal. However from my experiences it often falls to the caster to fulfill this roll more often than not at the mid- to later-stages of both v3.5 and Pathfinder.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll post here what I posted in the Free PDF thread:

Initial reaction for me was "similar to the playtest with some changes." And for the most part I enjoyed the playtest. I think the true merits of the system is that it doesn't require TONS of rules to make fun and interesting characters. Coming from a mostly 3.5 and 4e perspective I can say I'm glad bloated numbers with dozens of effects all stacked together are mostly gone. Further I think monsters of lower levels will remain somewhat relevant for longer periods and magic isn't an assumed progression a character MUST have to stay relevant. Further, feats are actually worth their salt instead of what they were in 3.5 and 4e.

Some things about the system:

· Ability scores max out at 20. So that fighter character isn't pushing his Strength into the strata sphere. He'll probably start rounding out his lesser stats, which makes ability checks better.

· Ability score bumps can be swapped for feats. This makes obtaining them more significant.

· No bonus spells means that spell slots remain a very potent resource that will most likely be held onto longer for the proverbial "right time". This, I feel, puts more emphasis on dealing with encounters with a level of thoughtfulness instead of just tossing in Fireball at every opportunity.

· less is more approach. With 3.5 (and to a lesser extent 4e) it was an exclusion-based system. Meaning that TONS of mechanical obstacles were fabricated to make attempting them severely difficult except if you had a feat, skills, power, etc. If so, its often a moderate or even easy attempt. In D&D next, it appears that things function about the same and proficiency or a feat give you a minimal boost, but not so much that not having it implies any such attempt is near futile.

All in all, it scratches an itch that neither my 3.5/PF or 4E games appear to do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Roots. That's the problem. People who want to play BECMI will play BECMI. AD&D people will play AD&D. What we wanted was something along the lines of Star Wars Saga, but D&D. And they failed to deliver.

So meh.

Who's "we"? Do you claim to speak for more than just yourself? Further, if people really did have a preference and truly wanted that expressed in the rules where were they during the playtest process? To my knowledge (limited as it is) I never saw outcries for a Star Wars Saga D&D ruleset.

Further, what would that have really done? I have a feeling that no matter what WotC produced there would be huge detractors just for the sake of it being WotC and not a revamped 3.5 (which would equally be met with WotC being seen as a greedy cash cow for producing nearly the same stuff and charging 50.00 for it).

Ultimately I find those whos opinion as "meh" not really interested in buying a new system to begin with. There's nothing wrong with that its just an observation I've made.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Diffan wrote:
To the comments about Next being "meh" or "no wow", I really have to laugh. On one hand, people fled WotC due to 4E's rules being too far from what people have accepted to be D&D. NOW that they have gone back to the basics, so to speak, its not enough or its vanilla or it doesn't compare to what PF already does. I just think its sorta funny and its why I have the perspective listed above.
I see. So opinions of other people are laughable because they differ from yours.

I laugh because I find the opinions ironic. A portion of the fan base left WotC because 4e departure from so many sacred cows proved to be too much and, to them, made the game very un-D&D like. WotC goes BACK to their roots and attempts to rekindle the old D&D feelings and beliefs but the same people claim that its nothing new or lacks a WOW factor. In a sense, WotC cannot win, regardless of what they do.

I, personally, could care less if people like or hate or find it "meh". It scratches an itch that neither 3.5/PF or 4E really scratch. Since Pathfinder is essentially free online and 4e products are done, it provdes me an opportunity to purchase this product where I haven't purchased any in a while other than DDI to keep the 4e tools going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...

Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...

Well presumably, your player would provide the decade-old book for you to okay. And presumably you'd at least give it some consideration, because you want your player to have fun options to play, no? As I mentioned earlier, having a forum account means that you can tap the wisdom of those of us who do have experience with 3.0 and 3.5.

Still your call of course, but would you dismiss an idea out of hand because it doesn't come from PF?

Agreed. I've come across those DMs who don't allow stuff they don't own (and of course say they would allow it if I bought them the book) and what I do is just photo copy the relevant information for them to look through. For myself, I'm not so easily terrified from unknkwn rules. In my 3.5 experience the majority of glaring balance problems comes directly from the PHB and supplements that empower spellcasters. Tome of Battle, at-will Warlocks, psionics, Frenzied Berserkers ALL pale in comparison to the Druid, Cleric, or Wizard in the PHB.

I always find it funny when I read opinions on the "brokeness" of later splats but things like Natural Spell or Gate or the crazy uses people come up with with simple spells to defeat encounters that shouldve taken the whole group to overcome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Initial reaction for me was "similar to the playtest with some changes." And for the most part I enjoyed the playtest. I think the true merits of the system is that it doesn't require TONS of rules to make fun and interesting characters. Coming from a mostly 3.5 and 4e perspective I can say Im glad bloated numbers with dozens of effects all stacked together are mostly gone. Further I think monsters of lower levels will remain somewhat relevant for longer periods and magic isnt an assumed progression a character MUST have to stay relevant. Further, feats are actually worth their salt instead of what they were in 3.5 and 4e.

Some things that should probably be cleared up about the system:

· Ability scores max out at 20. So that fighter character isnt pushing his Strength into the strata sphere. He'll probably start rounding out his lesser stats, which makes ability checks better.

· Ability score bumps can be swapped for feats. This makes obtaining them more significant.

· No bonus spells means that spell slots remain a very potent resource that will most likely be held onto longer for the proverbial "right time". This, I feel, puts more emphasis on dealing with encounters with a level of thoughtfulness instead of just tossing in Fireball at every opportunity.

· less is more approach. With 3.5 (and to a lesser extent 4e) it was an exclusion-based system. Meaning that TONS of mechanical obstacles were fabricated to make attempting them severly difficult except if you had a feat, skills, power, etc. If so, its often a moderate or even easy attempt. In D&D next, it appears that things function about the same and proficiency or a feat give you a minimal boost, but not so much that not having it implies any such attempt is near futile.

To comment in Scotts observation about the differences in places reactions, I feel it's likely due to these forums being nearly all PF supported where as ENworld has a larger and more vocal diversity of accepting systems. I don't say this to imply people here aren't diverse, but its my observation that the prominent majority here treats PF as their main system where as over at ENworld, they don't have a prescribed "main" system rather PF is 1 system out of many they use in a rotation. Further, I really feel Pathfinder fans (the ones who mostly run PF exclusively) aren't in the market for a new system. I feel that WotC will probably never "wow" these people because they're honestly not looking to be wow-ed.

To the comments about Next being "meh" or "no wow", I really have to laugh. On one hand, people fled WotC due to 4E's rules being too far from what people have accepted to be D&D. NOW that they have gone back to the basics, so to speak, its not enough or its vanilla or it doesn't compare to what PF already does. I just think its sorta funny and its why I have the perspective listed above.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.

So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Diffan wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Diffan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)
And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?

I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.

Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.

Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)
haha, so does that mean cave exploring isn't important or under utilized because we don't have a spelunking class?
isn't that the Rogue?

No way! He has some skills, sure, so he could pass for an amateur but no one is faster than a Spelunker down a cave wall! No one can navigate the treacherous descent into darkness or gets +5 to their Climb check as a class feature! No, the Spelunker is the ultimate class when it comes to cave diving and exploring. But don't expect him to fight or have any useful skills outside of caves, he's terrible at that. :-P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Diffan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)
And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?

I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.

Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.

Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)

haha, so does that mean cave exploring isn't important or under utilized because we don't have a spelunking class?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan you do realize you are in the home of the best so to speak? The nice safe bubble the mods at the WoTC board like to project around 4E do not exist here.

And I couldn't care any less.

Zardnaar wrote:
People will directly tell you what they do not like about 4E and you will not have a chorus of the usual suspects making up every excuse under the sun when here it is a fundamental dislike of the 4E rules system that drove us away form 4E in the 1st place. My PFRPG PDF still has the 2009 watermark on it.

Um, ok? I don't really see the point due to this being the 4E and Beyond place of the boards but if people complain about anything, expect to be called out on it. This doesn't even have to be 4E, it could be a host of other things. Further, there was a lot of stuff people didn't like about WotC before 4E even launched. So I think it's a fair statement to say that it's a culmination of a lot of factors, not just the mechanics of 4E alone.

Zardnaar wrote:

I kind of prefer OSR games these days but Paizo kept the bed warm so to speak and Golarion filled a hole after they blew up the Realms. I had fun porting Red Manrtis Assassin to Castles and Crusades anyway.

Another edition another boycott maybe if we sink 2 in a row WoTC will get the message. I'll buy the start box and see if my players want to try the adventure a lot of big ifs beyond that as I do not see heavy D&DN purchases unless they do a stellar jopb somehow. Modular= big whoop I have 2nd ed for that and I do not have to mod out martial healing to play it.

Honestly, what message? I don't know how much more open WotC can truly be? The playtest was a 2-year long thing that ANYONE could get into. Literally NO strings attached. If the new game doesn't appeal to the fans, they really only have themselves to blame. And if the majority of fans really wanted OSR-style mechanics, I feel they should have got on the ball to make that happen with the new system.

The fact is, if they DIDN'T and it was a large majority of modern gamers who took the time to do the surveys and actually playtest the material ALL the way then it's not going to be shocking to see that the design went in that direction. If WotC tanks, I really hope it's for a solid 50 years. That way MOST of the people who have been clinging to the tropes and sacred cows will finally move on and when the game reemerges people might have a bit of an open mind when it comes to this particular IP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Diffan wrote:


Though, I have to ask: Why is this a big deal?
Because it makes you *feel* like if you're playing World of Warcraft.

:roll eyes: and of course I don't really take anyone seriously with claims like that. It's as fallow and lame as when people complained that the 3.5 Warlock was "SO BROKEN!!" because it had at-will magic. At those points, you just gotta shake your head and laugh.

Gorbacz wrote:


Sure. You're not playing WoW. You're playing D&D. I get it! But it looks and feels like it were a MMO, with all those Ice Archon Frostshapers, disenchanting magic items into dust and having Shadow Bolt firing Warlocks right off the bat.

So what your saying is that people would rather have what....10 monsters? You get Orcs, Dragons, Undead (*gasp* a Vampire spin-off..oh noes!!), Demons, Humanoids, Elves (*gasp* DROW? Not another spin-off!!), Goblins, and Giants.

And if you want Goblins to have crossbows....well do all the math and mechanics and make it up yourself. If you want a Zombie-lord....too bad, you can't unless you re-write the system. Oh, you wanted an Orc Warchief.....go ahead and tack on 5 levels of Fighter. I'm sure the group would LOVE to wait 46 minutes to put the Bare-Bones monster together.

Awesome design! But it's cool because it doesn't *feel* like a video game.

Gorbacz wrote:
WotC wanted to rub off the MMO demographic by making a game which would instantly connect with video gamers thanks to using certain tropes, slang and presentation concepts familiar to them. Heck, it was even stated openly by then-brand management that the future of PnP RPGs is to ride the video game bandwagon, hence the way 4E was presented and all the (ultimately, abortive) digital initiatives such as Gleemax and VTT. The goal was to try and capture the video game demographic by making video gamers move over to PnP gaming.

And that's not a bad thing, especially since VIDEO games were the ones who took the slang and jargon and crap to begin with. Meatshield, Skill-Monkey, Heal-Bot, Uber-charger are ALL tropes and terms I learned and heard from D&D. Heck, I don't even play MMOs.

Gorbacz wrote:
The ironic thing was that an average D&D gamer, the core demographic as far as WotC is concerned, is a nostalgic guy who considers video games, and MMOs in particular, to be what 'killed' or 'eclipsed' his hobby, or at very least considers himself to be the one who engages in the 'superior' hobby, which is more refined and sophisticated than mashing buttons on a keyboard.

Agreed, WotC didn't count on Grognard elitists to be as vocal and cantankery as they were.

Gorbacz wrote:
And that's why 4E backfired so horribly - the core demographic rejected the presentation.

Meh, it was a LOT more than that. I'm sure that played a part but people were boycotting WotC even before people saw the rules. The h4te was full-swing months before 4E even launched. It's even documented here on Paizo's forums.

Gorbacz wrote:

You can - quite correctly - point out all the ways in which 4E was an actual RPG and had nothing to do with MMOs and video games but at the end of the day, it's the first impression that counts. Few people were willing to give 4E second looks, and the utterly abysmal handling of its' launch and marketing didn't help much.

Despite the h4te early on, 4E reached #1 and remained there until 2010, around the time the designers decided to launch Essentials. I think the drop off of people after the initial buy (in 09') and the departure from the fan-base due to essentials helped throw 4E into the backseat as it were. And, like you said, marketing sucked as well as their consistency with internal IP like the Forgotten Realems (which would've been WAY better if they actually took the time to build it up after the Spellplague instead of dropping the bomb and walking away).

Anyways, to get back to monsters, I don't feel D&D:Next will go 4E's route of making LOTS of different named monsters to extend the IP. I think the game is modular enough AND simple enough that people don't HAVE to tinker with every single thing to get a monster's schtick to work (such as my Orc Javelin example).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Why? Because it is an adaptation to the IP system. You can't own the word manticore because it is clearly in the public domain. But you CAN own "Manticore spike hurler". So, instead of new monsters with some thought behind them, 4th gave us an entire menagerie of stupid monster names that evoke nothing and were only made to differentiate the monster from other similar monsters of a lower level.

And the bolded part is where we differ. The name change implies a different use that interacts with the PCs. It also speaks to any particular monster's proficiency. Were it not the case, monster stat blocks would be pages long OR the monster's effect would be cut dramatically. For example, I'd like to throw CR 3 Orcs at my party, but the orcs use Javelins. Now I look into the Bestiary and look for Orcs......I see the Common Orcs and Blood Orcs that use Javelins. So now I have to go and create a CR 3 Orc that use javelins, which in PF/v3.5 is just like making another character with all the hassle of Skill points, feats, class levels and save adjustments and all that crap. Yea, I have better things to do with my time. Instead I'll just play 4E where I see the Orc Scout entry and change out Shortbow damage for Javelin damage and be done with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Essentials wasnt a revision, despite nay-sayers best efforts. The only thing it did was meagerly attempt to draw in a crowed that had largely left long before in a vain attempt get a bigger profit. Now I like the essential line and my group uses pre- and post-essentials material together with absolutely zero problems. It was actually designed for that to be frank.

As for D&D next, who knows? I don't particularly see a revision like we saw with 3rd or a reversal in design ideas like we saw with 4e. I think the intent is to keep the game simple and just tack on modular rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


DaveMage wrote:


Jason Beardsley wrote:


magnuskn wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that I'd shift. WotC would have to publish the combined revivification of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to make me forget what they did (against the explicit advice of the fans) to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention that I vastly disliked 4E and that I am very skeptical of their new edition.

To be fair, the transition to 4E was like, their third(?) time they "nuked" the Realms.

No, the comparison really isn't equal. You could use most of the 1E and 2E fluff with all the changes from 1E - 3.x. You could use almost none of it in 4E.

I had zero problems running or playing in 4e Forgotten Realms games using pre-4e campaign materials. I think you probably could have done the same.

Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. Iirc there attitude was "don't try". It's why I didn't think about trying to convert my campaign to 4E. Mind you, after reading the core 4E books I wasn't really hot on trying. It looked OK btw, just wasn't my game (I gave my books to a student if you're wondering). Anyway, I guess if you stripped out all the crunch and reinterpreted a lot of the fluff you could do it. Otoh, I don't have any doubt that my 3.x game could convert to 5E if I decide to do it.

I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I think the video only mentioned how cumbersome some of the 3e rules were, specifically calling out the Grappling rules. For one, I laughed because I felt they were right on.And I'm sure if they did one for 4e and called out lengthy combats, I'd laugh too. No edition is perfect.

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.