|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
And how exactly does this differ from the DNP during the Bush administration?
All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).
I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.
If you like AD&D, I'd recommend 5e whole heartedly. No, the mechanics are not the same, not really, but the FEEL is there. It's like they pretty much do all the cool AD&D things, but in a more modern, better edited way.
It's like I said before in another thread. To me, it FEELS like Dungeons & Dragons is back, after an absence of about 15 years.
Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?
Everyone who plays in or runs a "home" campaign has some degree of input into those restrictions. Whereas with PFS, the overwhelming number of people who play AND run them, do not.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
It's what he's done the entire thread. Isolate a mechanic of 5e that doesn't work well if you throw it into 3.x, and then criticize it for that, without taking into account that the mechanic is designed for a completely different system.
Really, David, I just have to ask....what are you looking for in this thread?
That's something that David Bowles doesn't seem to be getting. The default is that you don't have to use the PC creation rules for monsters. That doesn't mean you can't use a portion of those rules if you want to. If you think a monster should have Power Attack.....give it Power Attack!
Monster creation isn't shackled to the PC rules, but it also isn't shackled away from them either.
David Bowles wrote:
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.
Which does NOT require a feat. It's just a bonus to damage, combined with a penalty to hit. Nothing about that inherently requires it to come from a feat, except for your obsessive need to chain 5e to 3.x restrictions.
David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!
Know what else gives the DM the opportunity to build some really cool monsters? Unshackling him from the overly restrictive "rules" that govern monster creation under 3.x/PFRPG.
David Bowles wrote:
I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.
It's only underwhelming to you because you, for some unknown reason, expected WotC to publish the PRD, but with art added. From your posts, that seems to be literally the only think that would have made you happy.
I wouldn't make that claim until I've reviewed the final product.
They pretty much left the rogue alone. However, they bumped practically everything else up a few notches. So they show their rogue hate not through active malice, but through neglect.
This will probably get one of the devs to come in and yell at me / delete this post, but it almost seems like, as much as they deny that they think there's a martial/caster divide, they often seem like they're trying to make it even worse. Some of the weakest classes get the the least out of their splats, whereas their strongest classes get all kinds of love to build them up even further.
I hate to say this, and I know that I'll get a LOT of hate from the PDF for it, but it may be that Paizo isn't all that great as rules designers. Let's face it, the majority of their success is the adventures, and the entire system is built on the skeleton of a system that they did NOT write. They made a few improvements, but they've also made some things worse, and I haven't seen much since the core rules to suggest that any brilliance in game design exists within Paizo.
Well, I've decided to make a post to bring the UNUSUAL back, since this thread seems to have strayed into more general recommendations. These are all 3PP books that I like, and they all differ in some manner from the default expected fantasy world (or at the very least are criminally underrated/underappreciated/not discussed much):
Well, play didn't really begin to slow down to a crawl until 2000.
Gee, what happened in 2000 that could have caused that?
It's not complex....it's f~@!ing tedious. Which is far worse. Pathfinder, like 3.0 and 3.5 before it, ascribe to the philosphy that more is better. Especially when it comes to modifiers. Trying to make sure you remember every one of dozens of different modifiers to every single g!!&!$n roll you make is tedious and exhausting. It's not fun in any conceivable way.
Honestly, it feels like you are just trying to find things to not like about 5th edition, just as Kthulhu said.
Or are just making things up, like with the armor/stealth thing. If you aren't familiar enough with the system to make valid complaints, then don't make up something just to complain, it's pretty easy for someone with the PHB (or even just the Player's Basic Rules) to point out that what you have claimed isn't true.
And you never will, because:
1) You've determined, after one session, that the game isn't for you,
One thing I wish they would do is add a footnote that the monster also appeared in the AP volume. That way you have the stat block handy in the Bestiary, and if you want to look up the additonal information (ecology, etc) available in the AP volume, you have a handy reference for which one it's in.
David Bowles - I think part of the problem that you seem to be having with 5e is something I've seen a lot of on these forums....you look at individual differences between PF and 5e, but you either view them in relation to a PF game, or disregard all the other differences that are in 5e. There are a LOT of differences between PF and 5e, and that means that you can't just judge the individual differences without taking that into consideration.
I tend to name the monsters my characters meet. An example: Alternate Sheath the First.
For those asking, dnd-tools was for 3.5 material. I'm thinking the reason they (WotC via the law company they hired) shut it down is that they want people to move away from DnD 3.5, and purchase the "latest and greatest" DnD 4th and 5th editions. So, not entirely without reason, but still very, very sad.
There's also the minor fact that another company is using their brand "DnD" for profit. If you don't protect your IP, then you can legally lose the right to it.
Of douse, what fun is this thread if you can't baselessly accuse WotC of fascism?
I'm sorry it doesn't default to your expectation of "Casters rule, martialz drool!"
Happily for you, that still seems to be one of the.cornerstones of Pathfinder.