|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yeah. It's not really mechanically close to 0e, 1e, B/X, BECMI, or 2e, but it FEELS like them. In a way that 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder never managed, at least for me. For me, it's like D&D has returned after almost 15 years of vacation. :)
I will however accept one exception. I think a rules light system could be very problematic for any sort of organized play environment, like PFS. Not sure really how WoTC will handle the new edition in that regard.
5e isn't quite as minimal as some here are implying. I'd call it rules-medium, as opposed to rules-light or rules-heavy. As Ffordesoon said before, 5e has a pretty robust system.
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.
Genies, like a lot of monsters that people deride as being far less of a threat than expected (aboleth), are actually prime candidates for having class levels. That CR 8 efreet is the efreeti equivalent of a 1st level commoner. He's the dirt farmer that you ignore in every town you ride through. But if you treat him too badly, you might find out his uncle is a CR 21, 12th level spellcaster noble efreet.
Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.
Or, as I have rather cynically phrased it a few times lately: 3.x/Pathfinder is a character generation system with an ancillary RPG haphazardly duct-taped onto it at the last minute.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Personally, I think that at the very least Brilliant Energy needs some way to be turned off, similar to the elemental enchantments. That way it would at least not render your weapon completely useless against several common categories of enemies.
When I've GMed in the past, that's always been my take on it. You can turn it on and off. It'd be nice if they'd bother to insert that into the description though. Because if it can't be turned off, then I agree 110%...+4 is WAY too expensive. Maybe a +2 at best, given that it makes your weapon a situational secondary weapon.
Except if what you are using it for is looking for an invisible creature. If you use true seeing instead of see invisible to do so as a default, that's stupid and wasteful.
I will play the devil's advocate against myself for a moment, however. Some of the most useful spells in the game are actually found in the lower levels. For a prepared caster, it might actually be wiser on occasion to memorize True Seeing, and have OTHER useful spells in all his 2nd level slots.
And for a spontaneous caster, it might actually be considered more wasteful to burn one of your valuable spells known slots on a spell that is largely a subset of a another (albeit higher level) spell.
It'll still feel wasteful as hell when you burn a 6th level spell to accomplish the same ends as a 2nd level spell, however.
So the mish-mash of mechanics has the chance to be good, but the major new system addition won't.
Oh yeah, it's not a major system edition. It's a few new spellcaster classes and a bunch of magic spells that that simulate psionic powers.
'Cos everyone knows that Xavier does his thing by chanting gibberish, making shadow puppets, and playing with owlbear dung.
If you come to a movie about giant monsters fighting giant robots expecting it to even vaguely be bound by realism, you don't deserve to enjoy the movie.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
1974 - Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson create Dungeon & Dragons.
1977 - Gygax doesn't want to share profits from D&D with Arneson, so he creates Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. In addition, John Eric Holmes creates the Basic Set, intended as an intro to the game. It is based on the original 1974 game, and covers levels 1-3.
1981 - Tom Moldvay revises the Basic Set, and expands it with another boxed set, the Expert Set, which adds levels 4-14.
1983 - Frank Mentzer revises the Basic and Expert sets, and adds another three boxed sets to further expand the rules (Companion for levels 15-25, Master for levels 26-36, and Immortals for post-level 36 / essentially gods).
1989 - Karma bites Gygax in the ass. Just as he published a new edition to basically kick Arneson out the door, TSR publishes AD&D 2nd Edition to kick Gygax out the door.
1991 - The Mentzer BECMI sets are slightly revised and collected into a single hardcover, the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.
2000 - Wizards of the Coast publishes 3rd Edition. This editions neuters in-game traps, however it ramps up the lethality of trap options. :P Monte Cook laughs evilly. All support for the Basic D&D editions is ceased.
2003 - WotC publishes an new edition, but they only number it as a "half edition" so as not to anger geeks worldwide. D&D v3.5 is born. Splatbook production goes into overdrive.
2008 - WotC publishes 4th Edition. Like 3rd edition, it throws away the entire previous system. It becomes the most polarizing edition of D&D ever. The edition wars truly begin in earnest, as the by-now widespread internet allows geeks from all over the world to insult each other and accuse each other of having BADWRONGFUN.
2012 - WotC essentially ceases all support for 4th edition, and begins playtesting for "D&D Next". Or 5th Edition, as anyone with a brain knows it will actually be known as.
2014 - WotC publishes 5th Edition. Like 3rd and 4th edition, it dumps the system that preceeded it for something brand new.
For my part, I think a very good start would be to finish up the SRD. To include the Epic and Psionic monster portions.
A bit of searching found me a list of the SRD monsters, that seems to be complete. You could start with this as your checklist:
... Aboleth Mage
... Psionic Aboleth (Psionic SRD)
Abomination (Epic SRD)
... Anaxim (Epic SRD)
... Atropal (Epic SRD)
... Chichimec (Epic SRD)
... Dream Larva (Epic SRD)
... Hecatoncheires (Epic SRD)
... Infernal (Epic SRD)
... Phaethon (Epic SRD)
... Phane (Epic SRD)
... Xixecal (Epic SRD)
... Angel, Astral Deva
... Angel, Planetar
... Angel, Solar
... Lantern Archon
... Hound Archon
...... Hound Archon Hero
... Trumpet Archon
Astral Construct (Psionic SRD)
Caller in Darkness (Psionic SRD)
Maenad (Psionic SRD)
Paragon Creature (Epic SRD)
Udoroot (Psionic SRD)
Xeph (Psionic SRD)
I'm including campaign settings and adventures from both Pathfinder and 3.x, given that they're so compatible.
My friend, you don't want another edition, you want another game. Might I suggest Swords & Wizardry or D&D 5e ?
Even some of the most staunch Paizo fanboys (excluding the PDF) have to admit that it seems that their quality is slipping, and some will even realize it's been this way for some time. The receptions of Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Mythic Adventures, and the Advanced Class Guide have been, at best, uneven. Less than a month old, the ACG already has a sizable list of errata. Hell, they didn't even manage to get the cover right (class bloat is gonna be a major problem in six months when they finish out the sixth volume of the Advanced Class Guide AP).
Could this decline in quality have something to do with the fact that, in addition to the RPG and related product lines, they're also trying to keep all of the following plates spinning:
Not to mention the fact that the increased the page count for the Module line and upped the frequency of the Player's Companion line to monthly.
Is Paizo trying to juggle too many balls at once?
[Yeah, I know I mixed up three different metaphors that are all essentially the same. Deal with it.]
Except now Paizo is going to do its own take on psionics....excuse me....psionic magic. Only they're using a system that has 15 years of playtesting proving it to be the most unbalanced thing in the d20 system.
Yeah, I agree, It's not time for Pathfinder 2.0 but maybe It's time for Pathfinder Revised AKA: Republish the Game Guide and split it in two, player's guide and gm's guide make the player's guide more newplayer-friendly and put all the "harder" stuff in the gm's guide.
The fanbase would revolt. Pathfinder isn't really an RPG, it's a character-building game that happens to have an ancillary RPG sloppily duct-taped to one of the sides. Pathfinder fans don't care anywhere near as much about the RPG as the character-building game.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
That being said I completely agree with you that it is a mistake to not include permanency or a line about the demiplane lasting forever.
There was one:
An elohim is a strange being obsessed with creating miniature worlds populated with creatures of its choosing. It creates new permanent demiplanes
I see them as a phase of some sort. When I was just starting RPG gaming, my friends and I would design megadungeons with no theme or plot. Just design whatever. As age, wisdom, and experience changed us, the megadungeon became best reserved for a revisiting of childhood rather than something done for a serious game.
You realize, of course, that that's just your own bias. There's nothing that prevents a huge dungeon from having a theme or a plot, just as there is nothing that prevents a small 5-room dungeon from being nothing more than a (rather unfulfilling, given it's tiny nature) hack-n-slash session.
GM Xabulba wrote:
I agree on most of that except for Michelle Pfeiffer cat woman. Eartha Kitt's Catwoman from the cheesy 60's show, to me, is the best cat woman. Eartha had a raw sexuality that the cheesiness couldn't hide and her voice could melt butter. Also Eartha's Catwoman wasn't a mentally broken psycho but a calculating if capricious thief.