Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

My feelings about 5E D&D


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

201 to 250 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Chubbs McGee wrote:
I would feel better about this new edition if it supported a new game world and campaign setting as well. No more Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. Something brand new to explore!

I've never been a fan of the commercial campaign settings. I think they have a place in formal society or tournament play, but I would prefer that they give GMs more tools to build their own unique campaign worlds.


Looking back after almost 15 years, Forgotten Realms isn't really that great a setting. But boy, did I and dozens of other people have amazing good times with it.
Now I think I can do much better, but FR did a great deal in showing me what all a setting can be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
I would feel better about this new edition if it supported a new game world and campaign setting as well. No more Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. Something brand new to explore!

...Just not the Nentir Vale and Points of Light, please.

(Is it too late to hope for a Mystara revival?)


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I think the generic fighter already has feats, skills and abilities, but doesn't have to make any decisions. Kind of like the Starting Packages they have at the end of the classes in 3E.

Since I love creating characters almost as much as I love playing them, I'll probably still take the long route in creating characters, even if there is no game advantage to my hard work, dedication, study and execution.

Sure I will. I mean it. I really will. I'm just that way.

But what about those OTHER fellows, you know, the ones who believe that knowing the rules is SUPPOSED to give you an edge? In all this inclusive fervor, are we forgetting all about them?

If they give something like a 5-10% edge, I think those fellows would still go for it. Look at all the people who say that a well-optimized AEDU character still edges out an Essentials-build character. When you break the #s down, the edge isn't that big, but 'those fellows' still say they prefer the AEDU chars.

tl;dr- It could be only the tiniest edge, but as long as there's an edge they'll still do it.

Shadow Lodge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mearls money quote wrote:
admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.
And there, in a nutshell, you have my main problem with 4e, stated succintly and publicly by the man who did it.

The same charge can be leveled against 3.X. If you wanna try something cool, unless you have the relevant feat, you don't even get to attempt it.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Mearls money quote wrote:
admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.
The same charge can be leveled against 3.X. If you wanna try something cool, unless you have the relevant feat, you don't even get to attempt it.

I rarely see the point in arguing preferences, but I did find this characterisation of Mearls's view as odd (it's why I'm skeptical that's what he meant). My reason for not liking 3.5 could be stated the same way. Many people describe their disatisfaction of 4E as lacking rules for out-of-combat things (like crafting and so forth) - I can't really see how that gels with an attempt to 'please gamers with a limited imagination'.


Actually 4E deems such rules unimportant for game ballance, so it expects the DM just to assign a DC to the task from the p. 42 table and perhaps time needed to complete the task. Or perhaps that he makes it a skill challenge in case that the task could be a group effort. Endless shame on 4E DMG for not explaining such things enough.


Zmar wrote:
Actually 4E deems such rules unimportant for game ballance, so it expects the DM just to assign a DC to the task from the p. 42 table and perhaps time needed to complete the task. Or perhaps that he makes it a skill challenge in case that the task could be a group effort. Endless shame on 4E DMG for not explaining such things enough.

That's only if it matters whether or not the character can complete it though, right? Otherwise you should just say they accomplish it- although you may require justification from their character's background, I suppose. (You know verisimilitude by adjudication, rather than baked into the rules.)


Well, yes. I think it starts to matter when a low level character wants to make something by himself to save money or when stranded with inappropriate tools or bare hands. If he pays full price it's purely fluff to say I've made my own sword.


Zmar wrote:
Well, yes. I think it starts to matter when a low level character wants to make something by himself to save money or when stranded with inappropriate tools or bare hands. If he pays full price it's purely fluff to say I've made my own sword.

I just had a flashback to Kirk vs. the Zorn. :)

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Zmar wrote:
Endless shame on 4E DMG for not explaining such things enough.

Oddly, while I'm not a big fan of 4e, I thought the 4e DMG was a very good book for those wanting advice on how to run a game well. The only times it ever gave me problems were when I expected my prior familiarity with D&D to apply(and thus only skimmed a section), when so much had changed between 3.5e and 4e.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thought I would jut throw my two coppers into the pot here.
I've been a DM since way back in 1978 (or 79..senility is starting to creep in). I own every hard and soft cover book produced by TSR/WoTC (and other 3PP's) in support of D&D and all it's iterations up until 4 edition (Bought the core rule book set).
That being said. I'm a die hard Pathfinder GM and player now and have no need or intention of investing hundreds of dollars in a 5th edition.

I'm not bashing 5th edition - but I've found a system in Pathfinder that appeals to me and my players and we're sticking with it for the long haul.

Paizo - Keep up the great work. You put out a great product and provide awesome customer service. I only hope that others in the Paizo community will not jump ship and hurt the revenue stream that helps keep you folks producing the great product that you have created/refined.

Shadow Lodge

Gunny wrote:
I've been a DM since way back . . . I own every hard and soft cover book produced by TSR/WoTC (and other 3PP's) in support of D&D and all it's iterations up until 4 edition (Bought the core rule book set). . . I only hope that others in the Paizo community will not jump ship and hurt the revenue stream that helps keep you folks producing the great product that you have created/refined.

Like you I am an older gamer through many editions, and stopped with 4E, but fairly happy with 3.5/PF. But I do want to point out I'm slightly on the opposite side of that. I am looking forward to 5E, (hoping that it both takes a good look at what worked in 3E and PF/Paizo and what doesn't seem to work in the 4E model). That being said I hope that BOTH Paizo and 5E act as good competition for each other, if not work off a fairly close system set. I hope that 5E is a good edition that I will like, and that will not draw me away from PF. It may reduce my total money spent, (probably not by that much), but it will not completely draw me away, period.

My experiences with WotC's and Paizo's customer services alone has assured that.


A few new quotes have me intrigued:

Monte Cooke wrote:


This Legends & Lore article by Monte Cook says: "...this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."
Mike Mearls wrote:


"Players can pick their own style and complexity within a class. Think of it kind of like having a $10 budget to spend on lunch. Some people will go to a restaurant and buy a $10 lunch special. Someone else might spend that $10 by ordering a few different things off the menu, rather than a special. Someone else might take that $10 and go to the grocery store to buy all the ingredients for a recipe they like. The idea is to put everyone on the same scale, but then allow people to burrow into the level of detail they want. DMs have a similar process they can go through, adding optional rules to flesh out their campaigns. Those options can range from creating a unique list of races or classes for a setting, to adding in special rules for things like managing a kingdom or waging a war." - Mike Mearls.

Lantern Lodge

Took part in a forum poll for players opinions on the official group for discussing 5ed at WOTC website. (I voted for more options.)
Currently more players prefer keeping many of 4ed's features, like powers, healing surges and not using 3.xx's spell lists...etc.
Hope that any changes they make, will enhance not dampen the game.

Pathfinder stemmed from 3.5. Lets hope that this new "5th" edition would inspire other gaming systems, like DnD used to.

Shadow Lodge

Secane wrote:

Took part in a forum poll for players opinions on the official group for discussing 5ed at WOTC website. (I voted for more options.)

Currently more players prefer keeping many of 4ed's features, like powers, healing surges and not using 3.xx's spell lists...etc.

My impression is that most of the WotC foruimtes have pretty much driven off most (many) non-4E fans, so I would assume that if these polls where on this site, you would see a lot of the exact opposite. Nature of the beast.


E I wrote:
Monte Cooke wrote:


This Legends & Lore article by Monte Cook says: "...this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."

And, as others have said, this (to some extent) is what worries me -- because I can't understand how that would work mechanically. Do we assume that the 1e-style person can do things without skills? In which case, are we not, effectively, punishing the 3e-style person for having those skills, since the act of picking skill ranks puts limits on them that the 1e person doesn't have? At the same time, does the 1e-style person have no combat options, while the 3e-style person can choose to power attack, vital strike or whirlwind attack (effectively punishing the 1e player)? And that's even without trying to incorporate 4e-style powers vs. all-other-edition-style spells... (and, of course, who picks which metaphysics apply for those spells? Do 1e and 2e-style casters have to worry about fireball overpressure? Can they bounce lightning bolts off the walls?).

I think it's a noble design ideal, and I can see how it could work at the group level (though I do wonder if we can still say that people are playing the same game -- because my friends sure did distinguish between BECMI and "Advanced" back in the day) -- but at the same table, at the same time, I don't see how it would work without effectively shafting one player or another based on the choice they made.

E I wrote:
Mike Mearls wrote:
"Players can pick their own style and complexity within a class. Think of it kind of like having a $10 budget to spend on lunch. Some people will go to a restaurant and buy a $10 lunch special. Someone else might spend that $10 by ordering a few different things off the menu, rather than a special. Someone else might take that $10 and go to the grocery store to buy all the ingredients for a recipe they like. The idea is to put everyone on the same scale, but then allow people to burrow into the level of detail they want. DMs have a similar process they can go through, adding optional rules to flesh out their campaigns. Those options can range from creating a unique list of races or classes for a setting, to adding in special rules for things like managing a kingdom or waging a war." - Mike Mearls.

I'm of two minds, here. On the one hand, when it's done well a mix and match system is highly spiffy: it gives people the flexibility to play the character they want while maintaining balance between characters. Everyone gets to be effective, they aren't necessarily tied into one role or another, and they all get to play the characters they see in their minds.

On the other hand, when it's done poorly, it's just another mechanic that rewards "system mastery" as Monte calls it -- we end up with trap-options, room for massive min-max optimization (to the extent of the character of the same name in the Goblins comic), and a system which is imbalanced and considerably less fun for everyone.

Problem is, it's hard to do right -- and worse still, even if you get it right at the start (no easy task), it's far too easy to toss a wrench into the system and destroy the balance when adding later options - not because they're too powerful on their own, but because of how the new interacts with the old, or itself.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Tilnar wrote:
And, as others have said, this (to some extent) is what worries me -- because I can't understand how that would work mechanically. Do we assume that the 1e-style person can do things without skills?

I am not sure about a character without skills working alongside a character with skills, but I could see how both could work in terms of an optional module for skills. Maybe the character only gets to make Ability checks (effectively untrained skill checks) but gets "background" bonuses if the GM agrees, e.g. "Yeah Dave, your fighter's background indicates he was trained in scouting about, make a Dex check with a +2 bonus. Eric, make a Stealth check".

Regarding other stuff, that I can see completely possible, for example imagine in PF if someone wanted to play a very simple Fighter, rather than give them the options of Favoured class etc just say Fighter has 3 skill points per level + int. Rather than let the player choose feats give them feats that are not optional in use, e.g. Weapon Focus +1 attack with chosen weapon), Toughness (extra HP), Improved Initiative (+4 Initiative MOd), Dodge (+1 Dodge bonus to AC), Iron Will (+2 Will Saves) etc.


ryric wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Endless shame on 4E DMG for not explaining such things enough.
Oddly, while I'm not a big fan of 4e, I thought the 4e DMG was a very good book for those wanting advice on how to run a game well. The only times it ever gave me problems were when I expected my prior familiarity with D&D to apply(and thus only skimmed a section), when so much had changed between 3.5e and 4e.

The problem is not as much with content as with placement of important tools and explanation of them. I've found out the table after one year of sporadic use of the books and after a while I had a confict about the actual use (like if it's meant to be used with skill challenge only or not, or whether the DCs should be fixed for the same task or scale with the heroes). Essentials again cleared it up a lot.


I think the "modularity" will be reflected in a lot of "default" situations.

If you don't take the complex skills rules for your character, you have a series of default ratings that can be used to simulate the skills you don't have. Probably not as good as detailing your skills, but ratings of some kind.

Same thing with the feats. There would probably be a default set of ratings to simulate a "best-build fighter of <whatever> type" so that the character would be able to function in the same combat as a tricked-out munchkin.

It would (hopefully) be more complex than my examples, but that seems to me to be the simplest way of doing what Cook and Mearls are proposing.

Shadow Lodge

Beckett wrote:
Secane wrote:

Took part in a forum poll for players opinions on the official group for discussing 5ed at WOTC website. (I voted for more options.)

Currently more players prefer keeping many of 4ed's features, like powers, healing surges and not using 3.xx's spell lists...etc.

My impression is that most of the WotC foruimtes have pretty much driven off most (many) non-4E fans, so I would assume that if these polls where on this site, you would see a lot of the exact opposite. Nature of the beast.

Yeah, the WotC forums are pretty intolerant of opinions that go against the grain. Apparently Pathfinder Online is a cheap knock-off of Stormreach, Paizo is in no way even remotely close to matching WotC's dominance of the industry, and 4e is objectively better than any prior edition..


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't really sound any different than the tone used here.

Shadow Lodge

If you express an opinion that goes against the norm there, you will be condescended to, insulted, threatened, and quite likely have your post removed.

And that's the more tolerant posters. So of the others actually get pretty ugly about it.

Lantern Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:

If you express an opinion that goes against the norm there, you will be condescended to, insulted, threatened, and quite likely have your post removed.

And that's the more tolerant posters. So of the others actually get pretty ugly about it.

Yap... SOME people just can't keep a civil tongue in their posts.

I'm hoping the messageboards here have only a very little few number of such people.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They do, though even here, it seems the 4E fans are pretty severe against opinions/criticisms of 4E. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or go both ways, but 4E does seem to be a large point of contention.

Yora wrote:
Doesn't really sound any different than the tone used here.

Your right, but I don't think it was in the sense you mean. The general snobbery and "you don't like 4E = you suck/your wrong/you lie/you are making up facts/etc. . ." still seeps out a lot, and some people tend to take anything said against 4E in the worst possible way to be able to crusade for it.

Shadow Lodge

Compared to the WotC boards, Paizo's boards are happy fun time. The worst offenders I've seen here (most of which seem to have suffered a permanent ban-hammer) are pretty much equivalent to the average Joe Poster there.


Yora wrote:
Doesn't really sound any different than the tone used here.

Go over there and post a mildly negative thing about 4e - I guarantee you will get massively attacked.

If you be sure to post your negative thing as your personal opinion you'll get the usual passive-aggressive posts implying you're 'wrong-stupid'.

I know some of the pro-4ers here will claim that's true here in reverse - but it really isn't - post in a 4e rules thread, of which prior to the death notice of 4e being announced there were many, and you can discuss away without attack. Also the supposed equivalent 'attacks' here are much lighter imo, these days they basically amount to 'please accept 4e was a failure - look there's evidence in the fact it's dead now (or soon will be)' etc. Not in the same league, trust me.


The funny thing about 4E criticism is that much of it is unfounded and based in the the relese of the "Core" books. When someone shows criticism about 4E, it's normally "Well in the "Core" books, there isn't such-and-such" which pro-4E say "well, it's in this book or this article" which then anti-4E say "well PF does it this way..." and it's not so much an attack on 4E's mechanics but in when/how it's displayed.

I think the pro-4E people here have been pretty tolerant of the anti-4E snark that occasionally (ok, its more often thatn occasionally) comes through here. And again, these complains are more subjective "feelings" than actual rules mechanics that might be problematic. But to know that, one would actually need a decent understanding of the Rules of 4E and not just a perusal of the books at the store.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
The funny thing about 4E criticism is that much of it is unfounded and based in the the relese of the "Core" books.

Wait.

So what you're saying is basically that if someone tried the game when it first came out (using the core rulebooks) and they didn't like it, IT'S THEIR FAULT because they didn't keep playing a game that they didn't like using the core books in the hopes that later books would make the game better?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The funny thing about 4E criticism is that much of it is unfounded and based in the the relese of the "Core" books.

Wait.

So what you're saying is basically that if someone tried the game when it first came out (using the core rulebooks) and they didn't like it, IT'S THEIR FAULT because they didn't keep playing a game that they didn't like using the core books in the hopes that later books would make the game better?

I think its more a case of when people say "4e isn't D&D to me because I couldn't play a Bard/Gnome/Druid/Half-orc etc" often those who know previous editions say something along the lines of "Well then original D&D must not feel like D&D to you!" and a 4e player may say something to the effect of "You do know that Gnomes etc are all in PHB2 (or other book), yes?"

Its not so much someone saying its their fault they didn't like 4e, but more explainig either that those rules either don't define what D&D is in general, or informing the person that time has passed and now the rules they were wanting are now there.

Put it this way, if someone's first experience of D&D was 4e and they loved the Warlock and Warlord classes, then they got persuaded to try D&D 3.5 and they didn't like it with the comment "D&D3.5 doesn't feel like D&D because it doesn't cover the basics like the Warlock and Warlord class", would you think "D&D3.5 doesn't feel like D&D" is a fair criticism?


Kthulhu wrote:

If you express an opinion that goes against the norm there, you will be condescended to, insulted, threatened, and quite likely have your post removed.

And that's the more tolerant posters. So of the others actually get pretty ugly about it.

That's pretty much how I wound up here. I started posting on this forum after 4e came out, and us 3e players were chased off with pitchforks and torches. The trolls there even ganged up under signature banners like 4vengers, etc and jumped in to help flame and troll anyone who wasn't drinking the kool-aid. This was back when 4e first came out though, so the forum wars were raging strong, and I'm sure the mods had their hands full. I would hope it's a bit more civil there at this point.

Haven't really been there much since, just occasionally in the previous editions subforum.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The funny thing about 4E criticism is that much of it is unfounded and based in the the relese of the "Core" books.

Wait.

So what you're saying is basically that if someone tried the game when it first came out (using the core rulebooks) and they didn't like it, IT'S THEIR FAULT because they didn't keep playing a game that they didn't like using the core books in the hopes that later books would make the game better?

I don't remember placing blame on anyone, anywhere in my post. I claimed that criticism of the Game is often done with just a small fraction of the rules in front of them. For some reason, after the release of 3E PHB, people feel that 11 classes are some how standard format for next iterations of Dungeons and Dragons or that there should be X amount of races specifically designed FOR the release of play. It hasn't been the same.....ever in D&D's history. Ever.

So when someone claims that when they picked up the PHB and didn't see the Druid, it felt shallow and dull and they didn't want the system at all. To me, that's selling the sytem pretty short. I would NEVER play v3.5 with just core, it's too limiting in player scope and the imbalance is deplorable (IMO). But I don't base my opinion of v3.5 just on the Core books, but of the system overall. The later supplements that flesh out the system in ways Core CAN'T do.

Shadow Lodge

DigitalMage wrote:
I think its more a case of when people say "4e isn't D&D to me because I couldn't play a Bard/Gnome/Druid/Half-orc etc" often those who know previous editions say something along the lines of "Well then original D&D must not feel like D&D to you!" and a 4e player may say something to the effect of "You do know that Gnomes etc are all in PHB2 (or other book), yes?"

I don't know about other people, but none of these things mattered o me at all for why I did not like 4E. It was purely the system itself, and my first character was an Aasimar (homebrew) based off of the Tiefling. It was the system and assumed gamestyle that 4E had, not this or that specific Class/Race/Etc . . . that was not included.

Diffan wrote:

I don't remember placing blame on anyone, anywhere in my post. I claimed that criticism of the Game is often done with just a small fraction of the rules in front of them.

. . .

To me, that's selling the sytem pretty short. I would NEVER play v3.5 with just core, it's too limiting in player scope and the imbalance is deplorable (IMO). But I don't base my opinion of v3.5 just on the Core books, but of the system overall. The later supplements that flesh out the system in ways Core CAN'T do.

No one is accussing you of blaming anyone. Rather the general idea is that the Core books aught to have both enough material to cover most types of games/styles, and also should hold up to the standards of both previous editions and also the many selling points of the system prior to it's release. 4E, (in many peoples opinions, including mine) did not do any of these things. It did not fix grapple. It did not speed up combat. It did not smooth out the rules. All it did on these, and many many other "promised" solutions to problems, is completely ignor them and work around them so that they did not come up. 4E circumvented issues, which essentually means "you do all the work yourself if this comes up".

4E, admitadly, was based on a CCG system, and felt that way, (to a lot of people). In a bad way. But, when 4E/WotC was called out on this, both WotC and many 4E fanatics insisted this was a good thing, when many non-fans didn't agree. Not saying either is right/wrong, but that, and other things really divided the fans. 4E didn't advance the prior rules systems, but rather seemed (to many) to be many steps back from them.


Beckett wrote:


Diffan wrote:

I don't remember placing blame on anyone, anywhere in my post. I claimed that criticism of the Game is often done with just a small fraction of the rules in front of them.

. . .

To me, that's selling the sytem pretty short. I would NEVER play v3.5 with just core, it's too limiting in player scope and the imbalance is deplorable (IMO). But I don't base my opinion of v3.5 just on the Core books, but of the system overall. The later supplements that flesh out the system in ways Core CAN'T do.

No one is accussing you of blaming anyone. Rather the general idea is that the Core books aught to have both enough material to cover most types of games/styles, and also should hold up to the standards of both previous editions and also the many selling points of the system prior to it's release. 4E, (in many peoples opinions, including mine) did not do any of these things. It did not fix grapple. It did not speed up combat. It did not smooth out the rules. All it did on these, and many many other "promised" solutions to problems, is completely ignor them and work around them so that they did not come up. 4E circumvented issues, which essentually means "you do all the work yourself if this comes up".

"IT'S THEIR FAULT because they didn't keep playing a game that they didn't like using the core books in the hopes that later books would make the game better?"

Bolded text implies I'm placing blame, which I didn't. And again, why should another iteration of D&D 'hold up' to previous editions standards? Does this mean for D&Dnext we should have 13 classes...all PHB v3.5 11 classes plus the inclusion of the Warlord and Warlock from 4E? And the same goes for races, which stands at around 10 or so? And how on earth you don't believe the 4E grapple rules are easier to use than v3.5 grapple rules is well beyond me. As for combat length, I've found it to be comparable to v3.5 in terms of encounters but again, if this was EVER a problem you need only look to the DM for the solution, not a minutia of game rules.

Beckett wrote:


4E, admitadly, was based on a CCG system, and felt that way, (to a lot of people). In a bad way. But, when 4E/WotC was called out on this, both WotC and many 4E fanatics insisted this was a good thing, when many non-fans didn't agree. Not saying either is right/wrong, but that, and other things really divided the fans. 4E didn't advance the prior rules systems, but rather seemed (to many) to be many steps back from them.

Heh, theres that word again..."Feet". From someone who collects and plays CCGs, I don't see where your coming from. Exactly how is 4E based off of CCGs? What aspects, save "Power Cards", is even remotely tied to CCGs and 4E? I can't think of one except maybe miniatures, but that's not really the same since they're not required to play 4E. And as for advancing rule systems, that's really in one's personal field of what they feel are improvments. I had a problem with Wizard-Gods. I had a problem with the "Magic solves everything approach" of v3.5. I had a problem with Rogues becoming obsolete by 7th level. I had a problem with "heal-bot" clerics. 4E, to me, solved ALL of these problems including min/maxing, grapple rules, and abusive rules-lawyers that break games with ridiculously high Diplomacy checks.

Shadow Lodge

Diffan wrote:

"IT'S THEIR FAULT because they didn't keep playing a game that they didn't like using the core books in the hopes that later books would make the game better?"

Bolded text implies I'm placing blame, which I didn't.

I think it is more along the lines of how obviously redundent that sounds. Not insulting you or anyone, it just seems obvious. If you don't like the innitial core material, why would you wait and spend more money on something you already do not like in hopes that you may one day like it. In other words, if I don't much like Season 1, I'm not going to go buy Season 2 to see if I'll like a show. If I don't like playing PS3, I'm not going to go buy more games to see if the control sceme is better on a different title. Why should 4E be special in this regard?

Diffan wrote:
And again, why should another iteration of D&D 'hold up' to previous editions standards? Does this mean for D&Dnext we should have 13 classes...all PHB v3.5 11 classes plus the inclusion of the Warlord and Warlock from 4E? And the same goes for races, which stands at around 10 or so? And how on earth you don't believe the 4E grapple rules are easier to use than v3.5 grapple rules is well beyond me. As for combat length, I've found it to be comparable to v3.5 in terms of encounters but again, if this was EVER a problem you need...

Number of classes or whatever really isn't the issue, though I doubt anyone can say the exclusion of the Druid, (one of the more popular classes/concepts) is a very bad idea. Obviously we know that the Druid was a prime example of things the 4E didn't fix, and when it came out, WotC still had no idea how they would handle either the polimorph or the companion problems that 3E had, and so they left the Druid out. Understandable. I could absolutely care less about the Gnome, and I don't know a single person (with the possible exception of a few girlfriends that don't care about the game really just there to be with thier guys) that carred at all about the Gnome.

However, the point I was trying to make was that 3E innovated the game in multiple ways. It introduced a universalized system that practically everything worked off of. It allowed almost limitless options and combinations. It turned "no you can't do that just because" into "sure, but some options are much worse than others, so be careful". 3E introduced a way that could fairly easily take any setting and use it with their rules, only requiring minor tweeks if that. 4E, didn't hold up to that standard. It really didn't bring anything new to the table, (skill checks are not even rightfully a 4E thing). Well maybe that one. I'm not insulting you or 4E, by the way. I'm trying to explain what I was saying in a different way.

Diffan wrote:

Heh, theres that word again..."Feet". From someone who collects and plays CCGs, I don't see where your coming from. Exactly how is 4E based off of CCGs? What aspects, save "Power Cards", is even remotely tied to CCGs and 4E? I can't think of one except maybe miniatures, but that's not really the same since they're not required to play 4E. And as for advancing rule systems, that's really in one's personal field of what they feel are improvments. I had a problem with Wizard-Gods. I had a problem with the "Magic solves everything approach" of v3.5. I had a problem with Rogues becoming obsolete by 7th level. I had a problem with "heal-bot" clerics. 4E, to me, solved ALL of these problems including min/maxing, grapple rules, and abusive rules-lawyers that break games with ridiculously high Diplomacy checks.

Huh? The idea of back and forth, I'm using this power and then it's burned until next fight. I can do it a billion times a day, but only once per fight. The game actually feels more like a card game, like a game of Magic the Gathering than it does like an MMO, I think. Again, younger gamers tend towards those sorts of games. Not an insult, just saying.

The problem with Heal-bot Clerics is all about peoples attitudes about the class, not really the Class itself, but I'll admit that I do like 4E's handling of the Cleric.

Grappling. 4E kind of made it pointless. It circumvented all the suppossed issues by making Grappling not really worth it most of the time. I can honestly say, I like 3.5's Grapple rules better than either 4E's OR PATHFINDR's. It wasn't that difficult. I honestly don't know where all the issues came from in that regard. It was pretty straight forward, I think.

Diplomacy isn't = autowin, charm, or mind control. Poor DMing rather than broken skill. But, if someone invest that much in making their character likable and friendly, there's an issue with them being likably and friendly?


Beckett wrote:
Huh? The idea of back and forth, I'm using this power and then it's burned until next fight. I can do it a billion times a day, but only once per fight.

So, it's nothing like domain powers that have combat effects for a duration of minutes/lvl? Or Rage? Or any other Special ability that has a long enough duration that you only use it once per fight, and if you have say 5 fights that day, once per fight?

I will repost an example I did a while ago, of the comparison of 4E Turn Undead vs. PF Channel Energy. They are in essence the same thing, just the format makes people scream card game/MMO for some reason.

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:


d20pfsrd wrote:

Channel Energy (Su)

Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect. A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

and

4E PHB wrote:

Channel Divinity: Turn Undead Cleric Feature

You sear undead foes, push them back, and root them in place.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Close burst 2 (5 at 11th level, 8 at 21st level)
Target: Each undead creature in burst
Attack: Wisdom vs. Will
Hit: 1d10 + Wisdom modifier radiant damage, and you push the target a number of squares equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. The target is immobilized until the end of your next turn. Increase damage to 2d10 + Wisdom modifier at 5th level, 3d10 + Wisdom modifier at 11th level, 4d10 + Wisdom modifier at 15th level, 5d10 + Wisdom modifier at 21st level, and 6d10 + Wisdom modifier at 25th level.
Miss: Half damage, and the target is not pushed or immobilized.

Though they have almost the exact same effect; attack vs undead, resisted by will, holy damage, increases damage with level, limited number of uses (1/fight or #/day), modified by charisma, uses a holy symbol, and does less damage on a save/miss.

The visible layout, with a color code, and only mechanics with a nugget of flavor makes others see video game. So if all abilties were presented in the text format of all the older books, people may not think of a video game feel.

Beckett wrote:
The game actually feels more like a card game, like a game of Magic the Gathering than it does like an MMO, I think.

I think this whole mentality stems from the layout. These are almost the same effects that they were/are in 3.X/PF, only one is clean and simple, and one is a wall of text with the possiblity for multiple interpretations.

Beckett wrote:
Again, younger gamers tend towards those sorts of games. Not an insult, just saying.

This, I have not seen. Most of my group that prefers 4E are the older gamers (having started around 1E), and a lot of the younger like the only edition they ever played (3.x), and a lot of these same youngsters claim that 4E doesn't feel like D&D, despite having only played a version that was touted as not D&D when it came out.

To me 4E plays a lot closer to the D&D I grew up with than 3.x ever did.

Shadow Lodge

Fair enough. The problem I have is with the 3E system's 3/day, I can see the rational from inside and outside the game. With 4E, (and this is a minor gripe), the fact I have to wait for a little recharge so I can use a power more than once in a fight, but that I can otherwise use infinitly seems kind of dumb to me. Dumb in the sense that it breaks my belief and emersion.

That, and once I foud out my Cleric could whip out a circle of healing and be nearly unkillable at like 3rd or 5th level, the ideas that 4E was fixed or not broken went out completely in my book. However. I hope you do enjoy it. And I'm not saying you shouldn't, by any means. Do what you do. I do, however, get tired of hearing how either my problems with the system are invalid. Either they where fixed (years later), or I'm wrong and you are right (not you specifically, a general "you"), or whatever.

PS: Damn I loved 4E's version of Turn Undead. I hate Channel Energy, though I love the Cleric. Damage and "fear", that's something they got right.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
4E, (in many peoples opinions, including mine) did not do any of these things. It did not fix grapple.

I am curious, as grapple is a bit of an area of interest to me, but what was your problem with grapple that 4e did not fix?

For many the problem with D&D3.5 grapple was the complexity of the rules, IMHO 4e's Grab maneouvre is a much simpler and easily resolved action and so I believe it solved the complexity problem.

However, I do think 4e perhaps made Grab too simplistic by not having the option to improve the Immobilised condition to Restrained.

However having seen it in action and had my wizard affected by it I am beginning to see it is still quite a powerful move, and really is a fairly elegant solution, especially as sustaining a grab is only a minor action and escaping a grab is a Move action.

Shadow Lodge

My issue was (and it is similar in PF) that the simplification of Grapple was the issue. It causes it to be too weak or not do enough to be worth risking it in a combat, unless against someone inferior to you (physically). It was also something that was much more of a DM tool rather than a Player one.

I honestly don't see the issue that 3E is suppossed to have. It's a few If A -> this happens, If B-> that happens. If A, you can not do this, this, or that. If B, you can only try that, that, or that.

I feel like WotC was trying to make it out ot be more of an issue than it actually ever was. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't know many people that ever had a problem with Grapple. I could be wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

RAWRRRRRRRR!

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Beckett wrote:

My issue was (and it is similar in PF) that the simplification of Grapple was the issue.

[...]
I feel like WotC was trying to make it out ot be more of an issue than it actually ever was. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't know many people that ever had a problem with Grapple. I could be wrong.

I can see your point, but I think you perhaps underestimate the number of people who complained about the complexity of the 3.5 grapple rules. For those people, I think the 4e Grab rules do the job well.

Like you I presonally did not have an issue with it (I actually have more issues with the PF grapple rules in terms of adding unnecessary IMHO complexity and making it unintuitive).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't know how many people there are that had an issue with 3E Grapple. I just haven't met many, and I was in a few large groups with different people in them for the most part. It just wasn't my experience at all, but maybe it was an issue?


My problem with 3E grapple is that 1 point of damage from the attack of opportunity can stop it cold.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

My problem with 3E grapple is that 1 point of damage from the attack of opportunity can stop it cold.

The way I looked at that part was that it's not the actual damage stopping the grapple attempt, it's that the target managed to move out of position of being grappled to where they can appropriately defend themselves. The damage is just sort of sending the message to the grappler that their attempt has been denied.

For a real life equivalent, it's extremely difficult to grapple a person who is actively moving out of position and defending against your attempt. Especially if they happen to have a weapon. I've never wrestled someone wielding a weapon, but I know form experience it's plenty complicated as is. They can brace themselves in a stance that stops you cold, smack your arms away, etc.


I houserule it - if your opponent takes damage equal to 1/2 his remaining hit point points in the AoO (i.e., he is clobbered), then his attempt is prevented.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Diffan wrote:

I don't remember placing blame on anyone, anywhere in my post. I claimed that criticism of the Game is often done with just a small fraction of the rules in front of them. For some reason, after the release of 3E PHB, people feel that 11 classes are some how standard format for next iterations of Dungeons and Dragons or that there should be X amount of races specifically designed FOR the release of play. It hasn't been the same.....ever in D&D's history. Ever.

So when someone claims that when they picked up the PHB and didn't see the Druid, it felt shallow and dull and they didn't want the system at all. To me, that's selling the sytem pretty short. I would NEVER play v3.5 with just core, it's too limiting in player scope and the imbalance is deplorable (IMO). But I don't base my opinion of v3.5 just on the Core books, but of the system overall. The later supplements that flesh out the system in ways Core CAN'T do.

But when 4e first came out, when people were deciding whether they will play this new version, 4e did not have druids. It's great that they exist now, in name at least (my understanding is that they split apart shapechanger from spellcaster), along with gnomes, illusionists, bards, and so forth. But the simple fact is that my first impression of the system didn't allow me to play many of the things I expect from AD&D, many of the things I'd been able to play in 1e, 2e, and 3e. I resented what I felt was WotC telling me that if I wanted a 4e D&D experience that actually contained what I'd come to expect from the core rules (not all the myriad supplements, but the core) that I'd have to wait year(s) and buy more books. Sorry, not gonna, you lose. They lost me and many others right there. I agree that it's not fair to compare 4e core to 3.5 fully developed, or to judge modern 4e by the original release.

And to me, comparing to OD&D is a false comparison. 4e doesn't claim to be the 4th edition of OD&D, it's the 4th edition of 1e-AD&D, so to me that is the valid furthest-back comparison. That's the same stick I'll measure 5e by. BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia is a more true OD&D comparison. Those paths diverged.

I don't hate most of the actual game rules of 4e(except the monster building rules grr). But I am one of the many people who say that it doesn't feel like D&D to us. I have had fun playing it as a generic fantasy roleplaying system.

Taldor

Tell if if this tells you how people feel about 4E

I went into my local game store the other day. I had a ton of old 1st and 2 Ed stuff I wanted to liquidate. It just sits on my shelf gathering dust, taking up room for other "fun" stuff and is never ever used.

With it I took the 4E books I had. Each one was mint and had been opened up maybe 4 or 5 times. They where like brand new.

The store owner snatched up on the 1st and 2nd ed stuff and would not touch the 4E books saying they do not sell and he would not stock anything new in. He was very unhappy with WoTC and 4E but is selling out of Paizo stuff as fast as it is released.

So now I am stuck wit 4E books that,,, gather dust and will never get used. Well maybe if I take it with me camping, get stuck in a snow storm and need to start a fire :)


At my FLGS, the Pathfinder books are on prominent display, one of the first things you see when you walk into the store. The 4E books are on a rack around the corner, out of sight, and generally untouched.

But, as a swarm of 4Eers are about to tell you, 4E has ceased being a paper product. You get it through the DDI. The books became obsolete pretty quickly after Essentials.


Wow! In my FLGS store they have quite a few books for both Pathfinder AND Dungeons and Dragons 4E but the group at the store ALWAYS plays 4E, two different groups twice a week. When I asked why they didn't do Pathfinder Society, he said no one has come in and requested it. It's always been 4E for some time. What does this mean then? Well it means that at that particular store, they do things a particular way. Do I take this to mean more than it actually represents for that store? No.

But wait, this is about 5E so lets try to stick with that huh?


At my FLGS, the game usually being played is M:tG. And, on occasion, Pokemon. The proprietor is deeply shamed.

201 to 250 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.