P.H. Dungeon's page

You should check out the Dragon Age rpg then.

I'm always a fan of less classes with more customisation, rather than multiplying the base classes, so it sounds promising to me.

Personally, I see no need for classes like samurai, cavalier, barbarian, etcetera. Although I'm clearly not going to get it from D&D:Next, I'd like a game where the only class choices were fighter, thief, cleric and magic-user - each customisable in as many directions as necessary to describe whatever character you wanted.

I don't particularly like how 4E does minions, but I don't mind the minion concept. When I ran 4E games I used minions pretty sparingly. I do really like how Mutants and Masterminds does minions (fail your toughness save and you drop). However, that system has very significant variations from other d20 systems (awesome game though).

A lot of 3E creatures have pretty low hp and pretty much function like a minion anyhow (your typical orc, goblin, kobold etc.). They might take two hits to drop if someone gets a low damage roll on one, but instead of worrying about the exact hp left you could just mark that they are really hurt, and one more hit will drop them. For instance, if you're using minis you might stick a poker chip under the mini to remind yourself which of your mooks are about to go down.

FYI, I forget which issue it's in, but one of the print issues of Dragon Mag from a few years back had a Dark Sun conversion guide for 3E. If you want to use 3E/Pathfinder you might look into getting your hands on that, then you can play the Dark Sun setting with the system you prefer.

I played some Dark Sun with 4E, it worked fairly well. However, I don't think that the 4E system lends itself to the gritty style of play that setting espouses. My Mul fighter was pretty bad ass though.

I think Dark Sun is best described as a post apocalyptic sword and sorcery setting.

Yeah it does look pretty cool. I just ran a session of Mutants and Masterminds today. I love that game, so fun. Had the characters battling a massive oriental dragon across London, good times. Definitely no classes, can pretty much do whatever you need it to, but it doesn't sound exactly what the OP was looking for.

sigilwraith wrote:

I will third Savage Worlds, but also, take a look at Wayfarers.

http://www.yeoldegamingcompanye.com/

The guys who designed this thing did so as a labor of love, and it really shows. The book is amazing (newer mechanics but with an old-school look using the same font, "Futura", that Gygax used in 1stEd). It basically takes the d20 OGL concept and turns it into a heavily skill-driven system in which your character gets to pick and choose his combat and/or magic capabilities. Essentially, what these guys have done is picked apart all the nifty class features and feats and skills and put them on a buffet for the player so that he/she can pick and choose them like building blocks in a point-buy system... BUT, their take on magic and spells is really unique, intriguing, and just plain fun!

Very interresting. I'll probably buy the PDF of the revised edition when it comes out. Seems it's exactly the system I was looking for in order to play a Birthright game. It's close enough to AD&D to make the conversion almost effortless, but, even if the feel is old school, the engine seems modern and well made.

An interesting article, but IMO the author does come off as a bit of hack by the way he reads things into some WotC statements that don't seem there at all.

For example, in the article he quotes Mearls as saying, "This project has one goal - to create a base set of rules that cover the entire breadth of D&D's history," "We want a game that anyone who has played any version of D&D can recognize as D&D and find the things that drew them into the hobby celebrated and supported."

From that the author somehow gets, "For the first time, the creators of D&D are setting out to create a role playing system that is compatible with - and takes inspiration from - every previous edition of the game."

Nowhere has Mike Mearls said that the new version will be compatible with previous versions of the game. Suggesting that is the case IMO is really misinterpreting his words.

Or later in the article he again quotes Mearls,

"We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition."

Then the author says, "In other words, Wizards vows it's not replacing 4th edition, but merely adding another layer of rules that will cater to the people unhappy with the latest edition's changes."

How do you get "vows it's not replacing 4E" from "exploring ideas for conversion tools" ???

All I can say is that WotC better be smart and get some actual real info out about the new system ASAP because articles like that don't do much other than spread misinformation and build up unwarranted expectations that won't be met.

Here is the paragraph from Greg Tito's article on his interview with Mike Mearls:

Greg Tito from The Escapist wrote:

Previous editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

The article in question is online here:

The Esapist

It took me a single google search (on "Greg Tito Mike Mearls Interview Playtest") to find it.

This is not some barroom conversation related over a beer to a stranger.

This is an interview, by a reporter published in a magazine that presumably believes it has some journalistic standards. The bolded, italicized section above is known in journalistic lingo as an "attribution" meaning that it is a paraphrase of what the attributed person said. There is no logical or literary difference between "admitted" and "said". In fact "admitted" implies that Mearls was directly challenged on the point and explicitly admitted it occurred.

I'm done with this. You either understand the difference between attribution and hearsay or you don't. You either acknowledge the importance of journalistic integrity and credibility or you don't.

Either Mike Mearls publicly said, in an interview he knew would be relayed back to RPG fans that WotC ignored playtester feedback or Greg Tito is a hack with no journalistic ethics and Mike Mearls has a...

You would probably find some good stuff in their DeadLands supplements. My main issue with Savage Worlds is that I don't like the health mechanic. You hit a guy and make him shaken and then the next round he makes his save and is back to normal status, so you have to do it all over again, and basically hope that you get a raise on your damage or your ally hits the target and takes it out. At least with an hp system you feel like your attack is doing something when you hit, even when you don't drop the enemy. The penalties heroes take really start to add if they take wounds, and in a game with any significant amount of combat, you pretty much end up saving all your bennies for soak rolls, and if you don't you can be really screwed if you take a nasty hit.

Thanks for the input folks!

I plan on starting up my first Savage Worlds game next week. Thinking Wild Wild West with a history similar to Trigun. So weird science with a sci-fi background.

Intrigued by Mouse Guard...

I'm really enjoying warhammer fantasy 3e. It has a careers system, which is a little bit like a class system, but much more flexible. The custom dice mechanics take a little getting used to, but are pretty neat once you get the hang of them.

The game uses a lot of cards and tokens, which I'm not a huge fan of, but I still really enjoy the system.

I'm not a huge fan of any current iteration of D&D either. I'm enjoying Dragon Age right now, you might be interested in checking that out.

I'd buy that game because I don't really like any versions of D&D.

However, I dislike 3.5e and Pathfinder less than all other fantasy RPGs. If someone shows me something better than that, I am all for it. And the bar isn't really set that high. Being able to play a game as complex as 2nd Edition with based on the basic d20 system and it having decent official support would probably be all I want.

The third season is about to begin. They add to replace the main actor, Andy Whitfield, as he died sadly, but it still looks like it will be a good season.

Their goal seems to be to allow the guy who doesn't want a lot of extra bells and whistles to play at the same table with a guy running a more complex character and still have them balanced (maybe kind of like an essentials vs non essentials 4E character).

It sounds nice enough, but I have a lot of difficulty imagining how this game would actually look in play. I'm looking forward to seeing how they attempt to pull it off.

I can't help but think of the expression, "If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one." If fear with this new version of the game that is what might happen. At least with 4E they had the guts to design as a system that is much different than the previous one. Sure a lot of people hate it, but the people that do like seem to like it a lot.

That seems like the sort of thing that is up to the dm and players. It really has nothing to do with the game system, especially since D&D isn't built around a single setting like some other rpgs are.

Back to the 5e Wishlist:

I'd like to see an evolving game world instead of a static on that's only ever changed each edition (ex: Forgotten Realms from 3.X to 4e).

I'd like each AP/Module to have "impact" so that things are changed on the small scale, but cumulatively add up to a world that is different (significantly) if you play through them all.

I think that a game needs to be "organically dynamic" (for lack of a better description). Establish the core of the world and its "pillars" but then set everything else up that's peripheral to those core elements with an eye on changing them in the future.

Even WoW sort of did this with each Expansion, though much of it was subtle and/or only affected the end-game--until Cataclysm, which completely changed the majority of the game world.

I think a dynamic RPG should be similar. Build the world, expand on it, slowly alter it, but then have modules/campaigns that lead up to and involve/include truly world-changing events. Let the PCs shape the world--sort of like in Dragon Age II or Skyrim, where there are vague references to "The Hero of (Past Game Event)" within the new game.

Plus, you could embed "fluff" into the modules so that it is a part of the (novel) fiction but also directly ties into changes in the game world in case you don't read anything else.

Make both the modules and the novels part of the evolving landscape of the world instead of the game world being static and the fiction taking place within, but not directly affecting the world the players see.

Well our last 4E campaign ended in a TPK (a fight with a dracoliche), and although it wasn't the ideal way to end the campaign, it didn't prove to be a big problem. The TPK didn't happen until the very end of the session (so timing is important), and next session we were still gaming (new campaigns). In fact, in our current campaign there have been some major in world consequences for the last group having failed their mission, and the players are enjoying seeing what those are.

IMO a TPKs being a problem is over rated. That being said, you don't want them happening on a regular basis. I've had two in the 20 or so years that I've been dming, along with a bunch of near TPKs.

Werecorpse wrote:

Both, but most often as a DM.

This is the sort of mindset I hear often from DMs, and very rarely from players. Players like being able to hold onto the character they invested themselves in. Some DMs enjoy killing characters, but I don't think a lot of them stop to really consider whether that improves their game, and whether it's something that the players appreciate.

Quote:

In my experience if there is no actual risk of a character not surviving to the end of a game then the sense of accomplishment in getting to the end of a 'dangerous' dungeon or campaign is significantly lessened.

In my experience that's usually come about through the threat of the TPK. Which, mind you, is ideally an empty threat - you want to give your players the impression that they're in real danger of all dying, but play your side of the table skillfully enough that you can ensure they make it through the adventure (assuming they're not being bumbling idiots and making every wrong move possible). After all, if everyone dies and the adventure ends, no one will be having fun.

Quote:

If the rules made it that you could be beaten to a pulp, knocked unconscious, drowned etc etc - then magically healed and rejuvenated because you were not quite dead. I would prefer it. Give the player all the chances you want. Just don't say he is dead.

Why can't you just do that already? Rename "Raise Dead" to "Revive Fallen" or something along those lines, and describe any wound that might be fatal as simply being nearly fatal.

I've seen situations where a player would rather bring in a new character than raise a beloved old character (particularly at higher levels) because they know with the new character they will be able to pick out a bunch of new gear that will perfectly optimize their new build.

I personally believe that in general magic items should be something earned during play, not something you get to start with. Consequently, I much prefer the inherent bonuses rules because then you could have a character die and the player could bring in a new character with no magic items, and he would still be plenty viable.

Scott Betts wrote:

The point being: Gear isn't more important than your character. It's just much easier to return a person to life than it is to un-melt their equipment. Provide a way to repair totally destroyed gear, and you'll find this issue disappear as well.

My point was: Character death is easy to fix, loss of gear or destruction of gear is not - and making due with the replacement gear may be permanently crippling from then on.

As for a way to quickly reclaim the gear? All I can think of is Arcane Marking all your stuff and taking the time to hunt it all back down via scrying/teleportation tricks. If its not marked, I cant think of any non-verisimilitude-breaking-way to approach the problem, besides the obvious: Make weapons not scale up so much, so theyre replaced fairly easily.

In the process, WBL becomes obsolete, and the wealth you get can go to luxuries instead of necessities in gear. Which, in my opinion, is an improvement.

But some people want the super godawesome magic swords where you can pass it to a level 1 character and he can use it to competently slay level 12 monsters by himself.

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Better art conception/direction!

I hated what they did with Tieflings, they looked like cave-men with the prominent brow their horns gave them.

Make non-human races really non-human! Dragonborn and Shardminds and whathaveyou were too much 'reskinned humans' and not enough 'bipedal dragon/living crystal'. See breasts on both races, and shardminds having crystalline hair and noses and whatnot. I have enough flavors of 'human' with elves, dwarves, etc, give me something weirder, more alien.

I thought the Genasi's crystalline hair looked pretty terrible as well.

I didnt like some of the art direction either.

I have a whole thread about it at ENWorld....

I never had a real problem with the tieflings and dragonborn. I just pretend shardminds don't exist.

Better art conception/direction!

I hated what they did with Tieflings, they looked like cave-men with the prominent brow their horns gave them.

Make non-human races really non-human! Dragonborn and Shardminds and whathaveyou were too much 'reskinned humans' and not enough 'bipedal dragon/living crystal'. See breasts on both races, and shardminds having crystalline hair and noses and whatnot. I have enough flavors of 'human' with elves, dwarves, etc, give me something weirder, more alien.

I thought the Genasi's crystalline hair looked pretty terrible as well.

+1 to that.

The trick is getting the critters to feel flavourful, balanced and exiting to encounter without them feeling too "gamey" (ie. part of the world and story, not just a critter in a game). The gamey aspect mainly comes into play due to the way 4E powers are structured, which is my main complaint about 4E. The standardized conditions and way powers all function and such makes the rules clear and easy to manage, but the tracking of effects gets cumbersome, and the powers all start of feel very formulaic. It also gets repetitive (and IMO a little silly) when say you are fighting a bunch of orcs and each one of them takes a free attack at you when you drop it to 0, due to it's racial power.

Furthermore, the 4E monsters have virtually no fluff to go with their powers. Each power has a name and the mechanics of the ability with nothing to describe it. From those two things it is up to the gm to infer or make up the fluff of what the critter is actually doing in the context of the world when he uses the power. With many powers that is easy enough, but I found that there were many instances where I was left scratching my head trying to figure out/guess what a certain power is actually supposed to do beyond mechanics. Heck, even the players had this problem sometimes with their PCs' powers. I had a player running a Seeker, and I had no idea what his character was supposed to be doing much of the time. All I knew was the mechanics (okay, so you shot an arrow and now all the monsters in this area are slowed? WTF?). I hate that class because I don't get it worldwise (I know it's something about primal spirits and archery).

Is it too much to ask for monsters and characters to have abilities that are fun, interesting, balanced, easy to run, and fit seamlessly into the narrative of the world and story without feeling too gamey? That would be an admirable goal for 5E to achieve.

Yora wrote:

But why isn't evil cultist a player class? I did play a party of evil cultists once and it was the best campaign I ever had.

There will be plenty of people being able to tell of their great campaigns as monsters.

Because, especially in the metagame sense, it's hard to surprise players that aren't new to the game. Most of my fellow players and GMs know the MM inside and out, and if you create baddies using the same formulas as PCs, then it's all the easier to know what the Evil Cultist can and cannot do.

But, if you build the Evil Cultist as a Monster, instead of an NPC, then he can be free to be an "Evil Cultist (Monster)" instead of an "Evil Cultist (Cleric)".

He/She can have "monstrous" powers the (jaded) players aren't expecting, and it's acceptable since it's built as a "monster". If you build an "Evil Cultist" as an NPC Cleric, then all the players know what to expect.

Plus, as a DM, it's a lot easier to whip up a Monster on the fly than it is to stat out a Cleric and build it the way you need to in order to get to "Evil Cultist".

Why does the Evil Cultist (Monster) have a Necrotic Burst that slows and weakens the players? Because it's a monster--and that's as far as the mechanics needs to go. Getting an Evil Cultist Cleric to have that same ability would take a lot of wrangling, and may not even prove possible.

In 4e monster creation, I can create anything I can imagine quickly and easily, and without really having to worry about "how it got there" in terms of Feat Trees, Spell Lists, etc. Yet, as long as I follow the basic rules, it's still going to be balanced (and fun!) to play against.

It really is one of the DM's Delights in 4e, especially compared to the slog of creating BBEGs in 3.X

ymmv

I can get on board with all of that. However, I admit that I do find some of the 4E stat blocks a bit dull and lacking in flavour. I remember when they published Demogorgon's stat block for 3e in Savage Tide I was super stoked to check it out and send him up against the party in the big finale. When I saw the 4E stat block my reaction was, "meh". I found Orcus's 4E stat block particularly dull and uninspiring. I think they need need to shoot for some middle ground where the monster stat blocks are fairly easy to use, but still flavourful enough to get gm's and players excited about running them.

ryric wrote:

Non-combat abilities on monsters give us an idea of what the monster is doing when the PCs aren't killing it. A monster with stone shape at will probably has treasure hidden inside the rock of its lair. A monster that can use major creation never wants for mundane physical objects. A monster with craft(poisons) and profession(cook) may be secretly poisoning the nobility with very specific combinations of foods such that only one person at the feast ate all the components to be poisoned. Noncombat abilities give me inspiration for plots, for why the PCs are after the monster.

Plus supposedly "noncombat" abilities can sometimes find use in combat. I once had a PC win a fight using meld into stone.

Sorry if this is blunt but that sounds more like a lack of imagination than an issue of mechanical problems with the system. I don't need Craft (Poison) in his stat-block to justify my Raksasha attempting to poison the king with homebrew stuff. I don't need mechanical representations to somehow justify anything I want my NPCs or monsters to do outside of combat. That is what my main problem was with 3E and something I similarily dismissed as complete straight-jacketing non-sense. Without those restrictions, I can craft whatever background or history or motive I want from my monsters without a direct mechanical aspect required for connection just because some rule says "hey, this guy BETTER have Craft if you want him to make stuff." Because that's a complete load of garbage. I'll do whatever I want with the flavor and information of my monsters. Your basically saying you want rules for fluff but just for fluff sake and I don't (won't!) buy it with 5E.

ryric wrote:

Some people supposedly looked at the list of SLAs of, say, a high CR demon and got overwhelmed. I look at that list and see all sorts of possibilities. I see a creature that exists in a world that has these abilities to survive and thrive. With 4e style monster blocks, I see a

...

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

One thing I do like about 4E that reminds me of the old days, and that relates to the idea of non-combat abilities of monsters:

Monsters don't necessarily have to follow the rules for PCs when they are written up.

I don't like the trend that began with 3E that suggests we have to have explanations for how a monster achieves its AC or hit points or special abilities. I don't need a "racial bonus" applied to a bugbear's hide and move silently "skills" to know it has a better chance to surprise opponents than most creatures. It's in the nature of bugbears.

When I design monsters I use the bare minimum of notation to get the idea down on paper.

That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E. I do like a lot of the ideas about monster mechanics, specifically the recharge powers, and the fact that a lot of monsters got changed up slightly, so in a sense they where unexpected surprizes at times. Some innovations to monsters is one of the 2 things I really liked about 4E.

As for the short stat blocks and supersimplified upgrading/downgrading, honestly I liked the 3E version better. It was much more eligant, and also by catagorizing everything, allowed DM's to easily create things and have a good idea of their power level. I think that 4E's simpler version made for a lot of room for error or unexpected complications.

I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I think NPCs definitely should be able to have access to abilities that PCs don't. That can allow a DM to create very interesting and mysterious NPCs, and the PCs and players will never be sure what to expect when they face their enemies. Even in 3.5 NPCs have abilities PCs can't get- take a look at a medusa. vampire or dragon (or pretty much any monster). A 3.5 dm can also easily give an NPCs some sort special ability that a PC wouldn't get. For example you a dm might decide that an evil fighter has been blessed by some dark entity with the ability to regenerate 20 hp per round, which is something that PC would never be able to do.

The problem with PCs being able to get all the weird abilities NPCs might get is that as a DM you have to deal with the effects of those abilities for an entire campaign (or at least until the PC loses the ability or leaves the campaign). The PCs only likely have to deal with them for an encounter (or maybe a round or two depending on how fast they put down their opponent). Consequently, you can give an NPC an ability that gives the flavour and teeth needed to create a challenging encounter but would be broken in the hands of a PC.

PCs and NPCs serve completely different functions and purposes in the game, so having them designed and built different makes total sense IMO.

It would also be very frustrating to run a game for a group of players that cried foul every time an NPC had access to some special ability that they couldn't get. It's not like there is any shortage of abilities that PCs can get access to in either 4E or 3E.

If they could have feats progress like spells I would not mind the Vancian magic system so much. Take for example Dodge. all you get is +1 good for low or medium levels. Not that great at higher levels. Feats should progress and give more benefits. similar to the system in Iron Heroes.

Many 4E feats do that, but it usually when you switch to a new tier of play not say every level.

I'm plugging Dragon Age a lot for some reason today, but their talent system is pretty cool. You pick a talent (say two weapon fighter) and each talent has 3 levels of competency- Novice, journeyman and master. Each of these gives you a new benefit related to the talent. Basically every other level your character advances allows you to either upgrade a current talent or take the novice rank of a new talent. Certain talents also have class restrictions and not all talents are combat related. For instance, there is a scouting talent, and an animal handling talent.

I think the D&D feat system would be much better served by something like the above.

Yeah, if I played 4E again, I would strongly encourage my players to stick with the essentials classes.

Dragon Age has very few actual conditions (if any- though I have used ongoing damage on occasion), so you don't deal with that issue. I realize a few conditions can make the game interesting, but both 4E and Pathfinder IMO use too many.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

The way I see it is that it's not "How many rounds are quick," but "How quick are the rounds?"

Several fast rounds is a lot more fun for me as a gamer than a few slow rounds. I don't run fights in my game at the drop of a hat. When I do run a combat, the PCs know they've been a fight and it is usually a big deal, so I'm fine with fights that last half an hour to an hour. What I'm not fine with is tracking tons of conditions and having PCs turns play slow because they're trying to figure out which power to pick, how best to use their minor action, counting squares to avoid attacks of opportunity, and all the other non interesting stuff that can bog down fights in current versions of the game.

Agreed, and as much as I love 4E and the way certain aspects interact with the battle, there were just too many condition that were going on. I can handle one or two effects that last a turn but the consistant "on-off-on-off-cancel out-off-on" of just one or two during combat got a bit....tedious. It's a reaons I'm a big fan of the newer classes "Defender Aura", meaning no more marking and making sure no one supercedes that mark and having to track the mark all over the place.

The way I see it is that it's not "How many rounds are quick," but "How quick are the rounds?" It's the pace not the duration that matters the most in combat.

Several fast rounds is a lot more fun for me as a gamer than a few slow rounds. I don't run fights in my game at the drop of a hat. When I do run a combat, the PCs know they've been a fight and it is usually a big deal, so I'm fine with fights that last half an hour to an hour. What I'm not fine with is tracking tons of conditions and having PCs turns play slow because they're trying to figure out which power to pick, how best to use their minor action, counting squares to avoid attacks of opportunity, and all the other non interesting stuff that can bog down fights in current versions of the game.

As an example of fast and dynamic fights I will again mention Dragon Age. Since switching to that system we've found that fights can still take 1/2 and hour to an hour (still a little faster than an average 4E fight), but as I said above I tend to run pretty significant combats, as opposed to quick skirmishes. However the actually turns play much faster, because the rules are less cumbersome. You have the stunt system, which still lets PCs do fun stuff like knock enemies prone, make an extra attack, push an opponent, disarm, do extra damage, pierce armour etc., but even with the stunt system the pace of the fights has felt very fast and the action feels really visceral and dynamic. My main problem with DA is there are only 3 character classes, and you don't have the slew of monsters you get with D&D, so I have to build them all myself (which has been really easy, but still takes more time than just pulling one from a MM).

P.H. Dungeons mentions "dynamic and fast" for the combat system, but I'm just not sure how obtainable this is. In 3e/PF, I've found combat to last 4-10 rounds depending on the "to-hit" factor and the HP level between PCs and Monsters. In 4E, it's roughly about the same but decreases a bit with party synergy, optimization, and a greater understanding of what your character is capable of. But really, it's normally 4-7 (or higher) in rounds. The question is, how many rounds is "quick" and how many rounds is "too long"?

Personally, I have no problems with battles lasting more than half and hour. But I can see the simplicity with battles lasting about 10 minutes of real-time. Everyone goes a few rounds (say 3) and that can be really good, but how "deadly" does this turn at higher levels, with more spells, more uses of magical items, higher damage threshold and so forth.

I'd like them to keep the numbers rather low. Starting HP should be high initially (like in 4E) but slowly grow over a character's career. P.H. Dungeons also mentions the Wound/Vitality system and I think it definitly has a place within "Core". I see no reason NOT to make it an "official rule" published along side normal HP factors.

Taking the low numbers approach further, what if this is also applied to AC, saving throws, skill ranks....? We know that at high levels of play, most people need high numbers to compete with monsters but how "mandatory" is that concept? How does this promote verisimilitude within the actual world of the game? How about a more gradual increase of AC/to-hit ratio. I like the +1/2 level method because I find Thac0 and the BAB systems mathematically flawed and dreadfully inaccurate to express character growth. At least with the +1/2 level aspect, people rely more on their abilities, weapons, magic than the core structure itself. I just hate seeing all the numbers increase just for the sake of increasing them.

@Laurefindel: I like high-magic and circile magic concepts too and hope that some sort of rule is...

Here's what I'd like to see

Instead of powers for martial characters have some talents/feats for customization (not the thousands that they have now), but include a stunt system (see the Dragon Age game for how to do this well) to allow for some interesting tactical decisions without needing thousands of powers to do it with.

For spellcasters keep a few at will type abilities, but implement a mana point type system for other spells (instead of spells per level). Make sure those spells are cool and flavourful without being broken as so many of the 3E spells are.

Keep a level of hp closer to 4E, as 3E characters are IMO too fragile at low levels. If I were designing the game, I'd probably take a page from Star Wars Saga. Instead of just having hp, I'd distinguish between wounds points and hit points. Hit points would be very fast and easy to heal from, but wound points would take longer periods of time to recover from (though you would only take wound damage in certain situations- like from crits or certain types of damage). To keep it simple for dms most monsters would still only have hp. Wound points could be an optional feature for groups that want to run a grittier style game.

The numbers for attributes don't really do anything anymore, so I'd pull a page from M&M 3E on that one and make the bonus or penalty the actual attribute score.

Make magic items flavourful and interesting, but not necessary to having a playable and fun character.

Make combat dynamic and fast, and find a way to get rid of square counting on a battle map. Maybe movement rules that are more like a FATE game with zones or the 3E warhammer game with engagements and relative distances (short, medium long etc.).

I found the game a month ago and fallen in love with it; it's exaclty what i've been looking for as an alterntive to D&D which has been my biggest love for nearly 30 years.

Cubicle 7 has solidly found the sweetspot for rules and Tolkien feel mix; far more so than the previous Middle earth ventures for roleplaying game systems.

Love the way "fellowship" groups actually have in-game dynamics - not just a group of loosely organized PCs but an actual game-mechanic

Love the Fellowship phase - a way for the downtime to actually have a role in the development of a character and his/her group of companions as they too grow - and as they become more important to the world around them.

Love the themes of Hope, Shadow, Corruption, as stratified dynamic aspects of a campaign.

Many of the things that people have long complained about in D&D 3rd edition and beyond are absent and not a problem in The One Ring (while I still love Pathfinder and D&D 3rd edition - it's still not always perfect).

Here are some things (oft-contended) issues that do not appear in The One Ring

Powerful Spellcasters ruining the game: There really is no PC spellcasters

Min/maxing character creation: Character creation is somewhat channeled down a path with most of the abilities and scores already allocated to a character's choice of cultural background, and roleplaying/story-based calling to become a hero/adventurer.

Magic Item Dependency: There is very little use of "magical items" and the system is not designed around a character having to have thousands of gp invested in magical gear in order to survive; the game instead focuses on the character's own abililities - though some materialistic rewards are earned via game-play - they are usualy much more subtle in effect.

Power creep/curve: Characters advanced slowly and evenly. There are no "levels" in which all aspects of the character advance - compare to many "level-based" rpgs where stats, hps, abilities, #of attacks, damage output, spell-power etc all increase...

Yes solving those problems are all good things in my books. However, I think not having a spellcasting class would be a real deal breaker for many players, though not really a problem for me personally.

After playing a lot of 3E and 4E, these days I've been using Dragon Age as my fantasy system of choice. I find it accomplishes a great deal of what you mention up above, but it still leaves room for having PC spellcasters without magic ruining the game (though there are a couple of broken spells that a gm should be wary of). I've also been playing some 3E warhammer, which is also a cool game, but significantly more crunchy.

Yeah their modules weren't great. I did use some ideas and material from Revenge of the Giants and Tome of Horrors in my last game, but it was heavily modified. However, I did find it easy to convert Pathfinder material to 4E, as I ran the entire Second Darkness campaign in 4E and it went very smooth. Sure I could have run it with Pathfinder or 3E, but I'd still end up having to rebuild all the encounters as I find that 3E published encounters rarely balance the way the designers seem to think they should against the PCs that my group puts together.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but I think focusing entirely on game mechanics of 5.0 misses at least half of the equation.

What Pathfinder covers, through their modules and Adventure Paths, is a really high caliber of story-telling and support material.

From Rise of the Runelord to Kingmaker, there were great, pushy experiments in RPG storytelling.

I was a loyal WOTC product buyer, but their modules and series were often really abysmal, and always a big step behind Paizo.

I'd be interested to hear from 4.0 fans whether this improved after they moved on from 3.5.

If not, then they need to do more than just create a good system.

They need to reinvigorate their capacity for helping create shared stories and shared worlds.

--Marsh

Cheers to that. They should hire him and Robin Laws to design 5E. Then we'd have a game.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

That's why I've been playing my D&D lately with the Dragon Age system using the "Dragonhack" houserules, which basically add some D&D class and race elements into the slick and simple DA system. It's not perfect, but I'm liking it over the other any current version of D&D (from retroclones to pathfinder to 4E).

That is also why I'm looking forward to seeing what 5E might offer. Maybe I'll finally get the D&D game I want to play.

Yora wrote:

I think the thread title is the wrong question.

"What can 5th edition discard and streamline that Pathfinder inherited from 3rd Edition".
I play Pathfinder out of neccessity though it's really too complex for my preferences. But 4th edition is too radically different, 2nd edition not that popular anymore, and other RPGs also don't do a better job for what I want.
Having a less complex version of D&D that is not 4th edition is what gets me all exited about this.

It's because Chris Pramas designed DA - get Chris to do D&D 5e and all other D&D's will be forgotten...

That's why I've been playing my D&D lately with the Dragon Age system using the "Dragonhack" houserules, which basically add some D&D class and race elements into the slick and simple DA system. It's not perfect, but I'm liking it over the other any current version of D&D (from retroclones to pathfinder to 4E).

That is also why I'm looking forward to seeing what 5E might offer. Maybe I'll finally get the D&D game I want to play.

I think the thread title is the wrong question.

"What can 5th edition discard and streamline that Pathfinder inherited from 3rd Edition".
I play Pathfinder out of neccessity though it's really too complex for my preferences. But 4th edition is too radically different, 2nd edition not that popular anymore, and other RPGs also don't do a better job for what I want.
Having a less complex version of D&D that is not 4th edition is what gets me all exited about this.

How they handle Magic is pretty make-or-break IMO. Every 3Eer hates high level spells ruining near every story a DM can come up with, every 3Eer also hates 4E "powers" as the dumbed-down solution. How to offer a simpler magic system to attract newcomers, retaining enough flavor for 3E grognards, AND making high levels playable... solve that and I think they will be on to something that PF lacks. Modularity may be a big part of the answer.

Yes. There has to be some sort of medium between the gamey, but fairly balanced nature of 4E magic, and the flavourful but broken mess that is 3E magic. That would certainly have to be a major goal of the system.

IMO if they were smart they would take some pages from the Dragon Age rpg.

Instead of powers for martial characters have some talents/feats for customization (not the thousands that they have now), but include a stunt system (see the Dragon Age game for how to do this well) to allow for some interesting tactical decisions without needing thousands of powers to do it with.

For spellcasters keep a few at will type abilities, but implement a mana point type system for other spells (instead of spells per level). Make sure those spells are cool and flavourful without being broken as so many of the 3E spells are.

Keep a level of hp closer to 4E, as 3E characters are IMO too fragile at low levels. If I were designing the game, I'd probably take a page from Star Wars Saga. Instead of just having hp, I'd distinguish between wounds points and hit points. Hit points would be very fast and easy to heal from, but wound points would take longer periods of time to recover from (though you would only take wound damage in certain situations- like from crits or certain types of damage). To keep it simple for dms most monsters would still only have hp. Wound points could be an optional feature for groups that want to run a grittier style game.

The numbers for attributes don't really do anything anymore, so I'd pull a page from M&M 3E on that one and make the bonus or penalty the actual attribute score.

Make magic items flavourful and interesting, but not necessary to having a playable and fun character.

Make combat dynamic and fast, and find a way to get rid of square counting on a battle map. Maybe movement rules that are more like a FATE game with zones or the 3E warhammer game with engagements and relative distances (short, medium long etc.).

I agree that it isn't like D&D and shouldn't be run like D&D. However, I'm not sure exactly how it should be run. When I look at the sample adventure it reads a lot like a D&D/Pathfinder style adventure. It even has a bit of dungeon crawl.

It still looks like a pretty cool game. I like the mechanics of the system.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

It's a cool looking game, but I feel like I need more. There are only a handful of monsters, and magic isn't really dealt with at all. I realize it's not D&D, but I still feel like it needs a bit more for a gm to work with.

there is loads to challenge the players with...within their own party, other free peoples who they have to deal with, and with the impending shadow out there

there is magic of the dwarves and elves available

It has some wierd ways that development is earned, and I got a bit confused by it in running tonights game

It is not D&D and if played like that, it wont work

Being aggressive in LOTR is bad, and so, to some extent is treasure!!

Killing things and taking their stuff leads to the dark side....doh, wrong game!

It's a cool looking game, but I feel like I need more. There are only a handful of monsters, and magic isn't really dealt with at all. I realize it's not D&D, but I still feel like it needs a bit more for a gm to work with.

I have trail of Cthulhu, but I haven't played it yet. The next time I run a Cthulhu session, I plan to give this system a go though. I flipped through Ashen Stars, the new sci-fi gumshoe game, and it looks pretty cool. I haven't really checked out Esoterrorists or Mutant City Blues.

Like the above poster said, instead of skills you have a pool of points for your skill and you spend points from the pool to increase your success chance on a roll. I forget how often point pools refresh (I think it might be each session). This gives the player a lot of narrative control, but you also have to decide when to spend and when to hold onto your points.

I can't remember if you have to declare how many points you are spending before or after you make your roll.

I'm not sure if combat is as "non lethal" as the previous poster suggests. If I recall correctly there are some ways to easily make it more or less deadly depending on what the feel of the game you want is.

In ToC there are two styles of play discussed in the book- one is Straight and the other is Pulp. There are little icons for each, and they use them beside certain skills and rules to indicate which type of game the option is suited for. I think that the pulp version is designed to be more survivable than the straight version. The published adventures also indicate whether they are straight or pulp, though I haven't really checked any of them out.

Trail of Chtulhu is a very well written and well put together product. I could see how many players and gms might choose it as a great alternative to actually using the Cthulhu rules.

I ended up settling on Dragon Age, or at least I'm going to give it a shot. I found some material for running a more D&D/Pathfinder style setting with the AGE system, which I'll be using since I wanted to run the game in my previous campaign world.

Hopefully it will work well. If not, we'll find something else.

I've run Second Darkness and Savage Tide and enjoyed the endings of both of those. Savage Tide was the best. The final fight against demogorgon has probably been the pinnacle of my dming career. The end of age of worms looks really awesome as well.

I don't think having many magic items in Pathfinder would be a big deal. Take a look at the 4E inherent bonus rules as a guide line. Every 4 levels or so PCs add a +1 bonus to Saves, AC, attacks and damage. It actually ends up being more like very couple of levels, but you get some of the things at one level and some of the others at another. This bonus is presumed to be coming from a character's skill instead of a gear. What it boils down to is that 5th level character pretty much has the equivalent to a +1 weapon, +1 armor, and +1 cloak of protection. I find that character's tend to be overpowered anyhow, so being short on gear would probably make the game work better rather worse. It's pretty easy to scale the challenges down if your party is a little weak due to a lack of magic items. If you do like Pathfinder and want to use it, I'd just go for it without magic items- you can always lower a monster's attack bonus a little or make other tweaks to balance it out (like lowering save DC's by a point or two). It's easier in some ways to make the opposition less powerful than more powerful, so I don't see it being a big issue. The first 10 levels shouldn't be a problem at all, after that the lack of magic items will be more noticeable.

if you do want to hand out a couple of magic items you can always have them scale up as the character advances. So if a fighter gets a magic sword it might start off as a +1 sword, but then at higher level he might be able to discover/unlock new powers in the weapon, so that it becomes a +1 flame blade, and then a +2 flame blade etc. It's still the same weapon, but it scales up with him (Weapon's of Legacy Style). I've done this many times, and it has always worked quite well. I like it much better than the idea of selling off the old weapon and replacing it with an upgrade.

Laurefindel wrote:

... Also, the OP mentioned to be looking for something better because "Everyone seems to feel that Pathfinder is not appropriate for a lower rate of magic items", whereas it wasn't clear whether he included himself (herself?) in "everyone" and we didn't know what he felt...

I am not always the greatest at evaluating what rule changes would still be playable and enjoyable. So I started a thread in houserules trying to come up with a way to reduce the number of magic items in the game. I've also seen at least 4 other threads on nearly the same topic. About 90% of the responses in all those threads are how you can't do it without having to completely rewrite the whole spell, armor, save, crafting, and class ability systems.

In other words, you can't get there from here without virtually starting over.

I was willing to tweak with some house rules. But I do not have time nor inclination to make up a game system. So since everyone thought that PF is not appropriate, I'd see what they thought was.

Do you have a good suggestion for a game that does?

QUOTE="Dragonsong"]

why not try out Pathfinder but to toss in some difference, try adapting E6 rules to it?

E6 rules

It would be a way to play a known system with a limiter to high-end magical "arms races" and the stresses of high level gameplay and math.

Because some people want to play high end epic fantasy.

Because some games actually let you fight adult dragons without needing 45 minutes to look at all his buff vs all your buffs. Because some games are designed so that the flow of the story means you can do a movies worth of action beats in the same time it takes to watch a movie.

Pathfinder doesnt do this and then to limit it to 6 levels means you loose out on some variable X where X is the numbers of levels between 7-20 that you might otherwise play. For a lot of the folks I know that's around 12-13 so 6-7 levels.

Yeah, I was just having a look at that one. It might warrant a closer look, though I know that some of my players would like at least some access to magic. For me spellcasting has always been one of the main places where I run into problems. However, with martial characters there can be an issue with too many actions on a turn. Watching a player try to roll out a half dozen attacks in a round for a melee character can be pretty frustrating (obviously that's not the norm, but spells like haste don't help- there's a spell I'd drop from the game).

Well, P.H.D., once again I find myself recommending Malhavoc Press's old Iron Heroes sourcebook, which was a creditable attempt to present a d20 fantasy RPG that was not reliant on magic in any way. Sheesh, do I get a T-shirt from those guys if I recommend them one more time?... It was released well after 3.5 and made attempts to fix some of its problems, although the big one that wiped out a lot of previous problems was eliminating spellcasting (or rather, replacing it with a slightly unreliable and extremely dangerous form of magic, a la the magicians of Robert E. Howard or H. P. Lovecraft.)

(Oh dear, I just looked up-thread and saw Black Knight approves of Iron Heroes too. So, uh, if the two of us agreeing causes the Zombie Apocalypse, I officially want to take this moment to say: My Bad.)

Apparently it was the gm running the module RAW, which is IMO a combination of bad design and bad dming.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

The PCs were 5th level. In theory this would be a significant challenge. However, they were able to get their hands on some flight spells and fireball wands and basically single handedly destroy the army. I'm a little sketchy on the details- apparently they were able to somehow stay out of range of archers, but the point is simple things like giving PCs access to flight and other really potent abilities at fairly low levels can make a lot of challenges trivial, and many of those abilities are considered pretty standard, as opposed to min/maxing.

No that story smacks of poor GM'ing, a lot of handwaving, and a lack of application of numerous rules. Added to that the enemy were apparently lobotomised.

Thats not Pathfinder at fault, nor 3.X.

Cheeze in any game is still Cheeze.

Conan is good that way. So is Warhammer. 4E can do it fine to if you use the inherent bonus rules. Savage World would work. True20 and Mutants and Masterminds could also work well. I'm looking at trying a True20 campaign, in part for that reason.

Well I'm getting a fairly clear sense that a lot of the 3.5 issues are still fairly unresolved. I'm sure the system can be lots of fun. I mean I had lots of fun times running 3.5, but the game did have a habit of turning into a nasty spell hurling magic war- at least after level 10 or so.

Here's an example of how I feel that pre 4E versions of D&D were unbalanced, and the sort of thing I'm hoping to avoid. One of may players was telling me about an adventure he was playing in, where the premise was that a massive orc horde was approaching the city and the characters were going to have to build alliances and maybe organize an army to deal with the threat. However the orcs didn't have much access to magic. The PCs were 5th level. In theory this would be a significant challenge. However, they were able to get their hands on some flight spells and fireball wands and basically single handedly destroy the army. I'm a little sketchy on the details- apparently they were able to somehow stay out of range of archers, but the point is simple things like giving PCs access to flight and other really potent abilities at fairly low levels can make a lot of challenges trivial, and many of those abilities are considered pretty standard, as opposed to min/maxing. I'm aware of a lot of the key offenders, so I can potentially remove some of them from the game or adjust them (for example I'd bump all movement related magic up a spell level, and maybe put some other restrictions on such abilities as well).

Basically, I want the game to feel like a heroic fantasy game, not a superheroes game. I found with 3E it didn't take long for me to feel like I was running a superheroes rpg, and I suspect, from what people have said on this thread, that Pathfinder will be much the same.

Yesterday I was mentioning to some of my players about how I was thinking about running our new campaign with Pathfinder, and we started thinking back about our 3E game, and they were joking about how after a little ways into the campaign they pretty much flew and teleported everywhere and would hardly ever set foot on the ground.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, but I figure that there must be plenty of Pathfinder players and gms that have a lot of 3.5 material kicking around.

None. That way lies madness....

I'm wondering how much 3.5 material groups let into their Pathfinder games (ie. prestige classes, feats, spells etc.)?

I could say I'm curious about how you pulled that off, but I'm not, so I won't. I admit there is plenty of broken stuff available in 4E. Like I said, I got a little sick of it, so I'm looking for something else.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Black_Lantern wrote:

It still happens, however the martial classes have a place at higher level now. Also a good amount of the rules and mechanics have been fixed. Why did you use 4e if you were worried about balance btw? It's just as broken as 3.5/pathfinder. The game had players that could nova thousands of damage a couple of times a day, an infinite attack combo, weak spell casters, and unified formats for all classes.

I know it's off topic, but could someone tell me what the "infinite attack combo" is? It's a little surprising if something like that is actually possible. (I promise I won't go on about it in this thread, I just doubted Black_Lantern would read the 4E forum or I would have asked in a new thread).

I used to play 4e. My last character was a holy pursuing avenger that could burst 200 damage a turn at level 21. Don't get angry at me for making an overpowered character. The game is a wargame not a roleplaying game. There is a reason why they put skill challenges in along side mmorpg formatted powers. Which is pretty weak to be honest in comparsion to a battlemind. Look at builds dealing with the fey charge feat you'll see the exploit. I'm glad though they eventually did fix it.

No I don't remember much of that- I never ran a 4E game higher than 17th level and never had any of the experiences that you are talking about. I also have a feeling that you haven't either, and you are just talking based on what you've read on the internet, and not from any significant play experience with the game. However, I have no interest in discussing 4E vs Pathfinder, so let's not go there.

For the poster that asked, there was a high level ranger power called Blade Cascade that would pretty much let you keep attacking until you missed, but it was quickly fixed so that you are now limited to five attacks I believe.

Black_Lantern wrote:

It still happens, however the martial classes have a place at higher level now. Also a good amount of the rules and mechanics have been fixed. Why did you use 4e if you were worried about balance btw? It's just as broken as 3.5/pathfinder. The game had players that could nova thousands of damage a couple of times a day, an infinite attack combo, weak spell casters, and unified formats for all classes.

I know it's off topic, but could someone tell me what the "infinite attack combo" is? It's a little surprising if something like that is actually possible. (I promise I won't go on about it in this thread, I just doubted Black_Lantern would read the 4E forum or I would have asked in a new thread).

Actually, I think it is more important that they are balanced with eachother. I can adjust encounter difficulties, though that can be a challenge as well, depending on the levels of magic the party has access to, but if some PCs are far better than others I find that to be problem.

Again, thinking back to Savage Tide, we had a couple of party deaths around 11th level, and one of my players brought in a hexblade as a replacement character. It ended up being really gimpy compared to the other PCs. That character didn't last too long, and upon his death he was promptly replaced by a wizard/loremaster that was much more capable- much in part due all his pesky orb spells (ranged touch attack, no save, no spell resistance = overpowered spell) and metamagic feats.

There's a thread here recently that has been detailing the various changes from 3.5, if that'll help you get some idea of what's changed. Go to:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/whatAreSomeThingsAboutThePathfinderRulesThatYouThinkMostPeopleDo NotKnow

It's mostly individual blurbs, but some of the posters regularly collate everything posted so far into a big list.

As for 'balance', Pathfinder isn't perfectly balanced but that was not its main intent. I think it simulates the world fairly well. It's not terribly important for PCs to be "balanced" against each other as long as they're "balanced" against their opponents - and even that should only be true about two-thirds of the time (at most!)

Well in this instance, I was thinking of the Savage Tide campaign, which I ran with 3.5. It started getting tough to dm around level 11-13 (that was about the point where I was starting to have to redesign all the encounters in order to challenge my players), and for the last 8 or so levels of game play it was pretty gruelling to dm, though I really liked the storyline so I saw it through to the end, but threw in the towel after it ended. The final fight against Demogorgon was epic though- (there were something like 9 PC deaths in that fight alone and there were only 5 characters in the party, so I'm sure you get the idea).

I was planning on doing a homebrew game, and I'd likely call it quits around level 13 anyhow, so I guess it might not end up being that big of an issue.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

My issue is that at about the same point where your entire campaign is coming to a climax is the same time when the game starts to become most unplayable (I'm referring to my experience with 3.5 since I haven't actually run or played Pathfinder yet).

not being cute, but if you are just hitting the climax and the end of the game, then what does it matter about playability AFTER that point?

When you play Pathfinder just remember it is PF, and it is NOT 3.5. A big issue I see is people still thinking 3.5 ruleset and assuming things are as they used to be rather than playing things as they now are.

I found it easy to pick up and run PF, but a few 3.5 players keep finding 'surprise differences'.

Starting PF I'd recommend picking up the Core rulebook and playing from that for a while to re-learn. Don't need UC/UM/APG straight up, they are nice, but the Core is pretty robust.

Similarly ALL games get wonky at high levels, I've yet to see a game that doesn't.

I don't think the free adventures would really cut it. Running an adventure for 1st level characters isn't going to show the holes in the game. It's more of a thing you notice over time as your campaign progresses. My issue is that at about the same point where your entire campaign is coming to a climax is the same time when the game starts to become most unplayable (I'm referring to my experience with 3.5 since I haven't actually run or played Pathfinder yet).

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I checked it out. I'm not sure if it's really what I'm looking for, but thanks.

I'm leaning more towards True20. [/QUOTE

True20 is fine, but limiting. It is much easier to run as a DM, but in my experience much less fun to play. One of our DM's has been trying to get us to play it because he loves the simplicity of it, and well...some of the players just don't like it.

Paizo does a great job with modules and adventure paths (the core business) and so they make it easier to DM by providing great DM resources.

I would strongly recommend grabbing one of the free adventures and running it as a one off. It is close enough to 3.5 it won't take much effort to learn for someone who knows that set, but I think you will find the same experience I had playing it, specifically that most of the "broken" parts of 3.5 got fixed in little ways that add up to a major upgrade.

YMMV.

I checked it out. I'm not sure if it's really what I'm looking for, but thanks.

I'm leaning more towards True20.

One of my players mentioned E6, but I have no real idea what it is.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I've played lots of 3.5, but for the past few years I've been running 4E games. I haven't tried Pathfinder yet. We're starting a new campaign and we've decided to take a break from 4E. I've been trying to decide whether to use Pathfinder or True20. I like a lot of the flavour and such in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit hesitant to use the system because on the surface it looks like it would have all the same balance issues that 3.5 had (primarily- magic dominating the game at higher levels and melee characters having few combat options beyond "full attack, again"). For those of you who have played the game past level 9 or so, is this the case or have they managed to make some changes to alleviate that trend?

If you had problems with balance in 3.5, you're still going to have them in Pathfinder. While some small things were done here and there, it's still, for the most part, the same as it was before.

Pathfinder is a good system, and is an improvement on 3.5, but it's probably not going to be your cup of tea, from the sounds of things.

Although, what you might consider doing is using it as the basis for an E6 campaign. That's something your group might have a lot of fun with.

There were definitely some broken things in 4E, but when my players were hitting 16th level, I wasn't finding near as hard to dm and challenge them as I did when I was running 3.5, so for me it was a significantly more balanced system than 3.5. However, it certainly has plenty of things that I don't love about it. Still we had plenty of fun playing it. It's mostly the "gamey" feel to it and the long combats that I'm tired of, but I don't miss the "Everything you can do, I can do better with magic," syndrome that I experienced with 3E. IMO there's some pretty big pros and cons for both games.

It still happens, however the martial classes have a place at higher level now. Also a good amount of the rules and mechanics have been fixed. Why did you use 4e if you were worried about balance btw? It's just as broken as 3.5/pathfinder. The game had players that could nova thousands of damage a couple of times a day, an infinite attack combo, weak spell casters, and unified formats for all classes.

So the plan is to get a more long term fantasy game going again in the next couple of weeks. Unfortunately, I still haven't figured out what system to go with. I've checked out a ton of them. There's things I like and dislike about all of them.

I had been thinking Savage Worlds, but one of my players is gm every other week, and he's just started running a Savage Worlds game right. We've played a session and enjoyed it, but the players think that one Savage Worlds game is enough, and they'd prefer to play a different system for the other game.

Despite all the options out there, it's come back to d20. We've voted on a break from 4E and I'm now trying to decide between Pathfinder and True20. Does anyone have any thoughts about which is the better system? Both have pros and cons, so it's a tough call.