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)

251 to 300 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Funny how that works.


Why is it whenever anyone references 'their own' flgs it always seems to support their opinion on this subject.

Any big game store will sell both 4e and PF I would expect. I hate 4e, but that it is tied top seller is not really in question. (Except to only the most hardline patriots of either side.) Or, well, it was at least - I expect it's already woeful sales (bad enough they hastily greenlit 5e in 2010!) will drop all the more with the recent death notice of the edition.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because if it doesn't support your view, you don't mention it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
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.

It's just a matter of perspective. I never had a problem with 3.x Grapple either, but it's a lot like the "problem" with THAC0; to me it [THAC0] was a no-brainer, it was simple, basic math...

Obviously, others had issues with it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem people had with THAC0 was more aesthetic than math. They liked the tables in the DMG better.

Shadow Lodge

I will say, I have a problem with THAC0, but that's only after going back from 3E and wondering why it was so needlessly complicated back then. :)

It wasn't bad, but I wonder what they where thinking when they developed that system.


I didn't have a problem with grapple until about '07. Before, it didn't come up much, because it wasn't worth it. My problem arose when I was grappled, then an ally summoned a girallon to grapple my grappler, then a charmed ally grappled the girallon. Only one was actually grappling me, but by the rules I had to break the grapple of the one holding me, the one holding the one holding me, and the one holding the one holding the one holding me.

From then on we looked into them further, and they were just too convoluted for the purpose and effect of them. OOTS said it best in one of its comics where the group discusses how grapple works, decides that it does much less for much more work, and the monster chooses not to grapple because it just wasn't worth it, despite it being the special ability of the monster.

It has just been my experience that it was not often used or well received (IMO still better than the 2E rules), but cleaner in 4E. I like the PF version, but it can still become too complex given the situation. I prefer rules that are clean and clear, so all my Rule-laywer friends and I don't drag down play, just by trying to follow the rules.

To me, each edition has been better than the one previous, and I still have problems with each one. As long as 5th continues this trend, then I'll be pleased.

Shadow Lodge

Only if any of those extra grapplers chose to target you in the grapple. Otherwise, they pick one target to grapple, and only that target would be Grappling multiple grapplers and need to beat them all.

Also, if the one holding the one holding the one holding you is held, they can't be grappling each of you seperately. So, along that chain, one would have to stop defending (spending actions) to Grapple another in order to fight the last grappler.

This seems like a pretty extreme corner case. :)


My issues with Grapple:

  • Generally, only ones that focus on grapple benefit from it (via feats, PrC, magic items). It's not an option for your average adventurer because the chance for success is so exceedingly rare. And it's success rate drops significantly as you gain higher levels.

  • Monsters who tend to grapple are vastly superior to any PCs of the same level/CR and it's often been automatically given that a grapple will occure, like it or not. Monsters have abilities and feats that by-pass the rules (like specialized character) yet the danger in being grappled by a monster far exceeds anything a PC can do in a grapple. This puts the grapple rules favoring monsters heavily.

  • Actual rules of grapple are convoluted. First, initiate a grapple that will result in an AoO, which BTW, if succeeded you take damage AND your action is lost (thus requiring specific builds to pull off). Second is making a melee-touch, also missing results in a fail. Thrid are Opposing Grapple rolls. Good luck EVER grappling a monster thats bigger than Large (even for specialized grapplers) because "You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the target is two or more size categories larger than you are.." If they're not the numbers still give them such a huge advantage that it's practially a non-option as size, BAB, Str most likely will far exceed yours. Third, mantaining a grapple with any sort of danger for the foe, you deal unarmed damage...whoop-dee-doo or make an attack (with a -4 penalty). So once you have the guy, your pretty much done every round except maintaining the grapple. Even if you actually land a blow, it's often moot because of ineffective damage from just one attack your allowed.

    So aside from those specifically on a Character Builder mission to create someone who grapples, it's just easier to use other tactics becaus grappling is not a useful OR viable PC combat option.

  • Shadow Lodge

    You can't grapple a creature thats bigger than large (assuming you are medium), you autofail.

    Improved Grapple negates the AoO.


    Beckett wrote:

    You can't grapple a creature thats bigger than large (assuming you are medium), you autofail.

    Improved Grapple negates the AoO.

    Yea, fixed that with an edit. Also, putting feats into something that still has a slim chance of succeeding is just poor character design. That is, unless you go for that with a host of other feats and Prestige Classes and magic items that make it easier. And that's why it's only useful for specific builds.

    In 4E, anyone can attempt a grapple and not be completly shut down for the attempt OR getting punched in the face for thinking about it. And the rules are simpler to read. From This to This:

    Target: You can attempt to grab a creature that is
    smaller than you, the same size category as you, or
    one category larger than you. The creature must be
    within your melee reach (don’t count extra reach
    from a weapon).
    ✦ Strength Attack: Make a Strength attack vs. Reflex.
    Do not add any weapon modifiers. You must have at
    least one hand free to make a grab attempt.
    Hit: The enemy is immobilized until it escapes
    or you end the grab. Your enemy can attempt to
    escape on its turn.
    ✦ Sustaining a Grab: You sustain a grab as a minor
    action. You can end a grab as a free action.
    ✦ Effects that End a Grab: If you are affected by a
    condition that prevents you from taking opportunity
    actions (such as dazed, stunned, surprised, or unconscious),
    you immediately let go of a grabbed enemy.
    If you move away from the creature you’re grabbing,
    you let go and the grab ends. If a pull, a push, or a
    slide moves you or the creature you’re grabbing out
    of your reach, the grab ends.


    Beckett wrote:
    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.

    Anecdotally, I DMed 3.x for years and to this day I'm not certain how grapple is supposed to work. My eyes tend to glaze over with that much rules text, and since none of my players ever built a grappling character, I never had a good reason to force myself thru it.

    If I was into grappling characters, I might be disappointed in grab. But I've always thought that the pugilist/monk concept is somewhat silly in the context of D&D, so I mostly just appreciate the simplicity of grab.

    Speaking of common mechanical complaints that we never understood, I never had a problem with AoO/OAs. Aside from some of the obscure actions which provoke AoOs in 3.x, I find both to be simple and intuitive mechanics.

    IceniQueen wrote:
    Tell if if this tells you how people feel about 4E

    Sadly, Amazon is my FLGS and has been for most of my life.

    On second thought, considering all these stories I'm hearing about LGS owners with agendas and bad attitudes, it's not so sad.

    Shadow Lodge

    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    Anecdotally, I DMed 3.x for years and to this day I'm not certain how grapple is supposed to work. My eyes tend to glaze over with that much rules text, and since none of my players ever built a grappling character, I never had a good reason to force myself thru it.

    Nothing wrong with that. Did 4E or PF simplify it or work better?

    IceniQueen wrote:
    Tell if if this tells you how people feel about 4E
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:

    Sadly, Amazon is my FLGS and has been for most of my life.

    On second thought, considering all these stories I'm hearing about LGS owners with agendas and bad attitudes, it's not so sad.

    Heck, I'm deployed, so a lot of times that's my only option. There is nothing wrong with that, though I do very much miss the game store presence.


    Beckett wrote:
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    Anecdotally, I DMed 3.x for years and to this day I'm not certain how grapple is supposed to work. My eyes tend to glaze over with that much rules text, and since none of my players ever built a grappling character, I never had a good reason to force myself thru it.
    Nothing wrong with that. Did 4E or PF simplify it or work better?

    Whoops, the Grab option that I talked about in my previous post is 4e's answer to grapple. It doesn't come up often in my group, but when it does I appreciate its simplicity.

    I've never gotten to play PF, so I've never experienced its answer to grapple.

    Shadow Lodge

    I assumed it was, though I think all versions of D&D and PF also have a grab option for monsters, (and a few powers), I think 3E made it more common, PF backed away from it some, and 4E, I have no idea. I don't actually remember it much besides one of the many push/pull tactics.


    Beckett wrote:
    I assumed it was, though I think all versions of D&D and PF also have a grab option for monsters, (and a few powers), I think 3E made it more common, PF backed away from it some, and 4E, I have no idea. I don't actually remember it much besides one of the many push/pull tactics.

    Just like grappling in 3e/3.5, grabbing in 4e is a mechanic that is much more often used by monsters against PCs than it is against PCs by monsters. Many monsters have abilities that allow them to grab and continue to act, or grab and continue to deal damage to the grabbed PC. The big bad monster grabbing the hero in its vile clutches is a much more common fantasy trope than the hero grabbing the big bad monster.

    Andoran

    Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
    I think the problem people had with THAC0 was more aesthetic than math. They liked the tables in the DMG better.

    This.

    Andoran

    Beckett wrote:

    I will say, I have a problem with THAC0, but that's only after going back from 3E and wondering why it was so needlessly complicated back then. :)

    It wasn't bad, but I wonder what they where thinking when they developed that system.

    They didn't "develop a system", they eliminated a table. THAC0 is exactly the combat chart from 1e, only without the chart.

    Andoran

    Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
    I like the PF version, but it can still become too complex given the situation.

    Um, "add this number to a d20, and if you roll higher than this other number you succeed" is complex???


    houstonderek wrote:
    Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
    I like the PF version, but it can still become too complex given the situation.
    Um, "add this number to a d20, and if you roll higher than this other number you succeed" is complex???

    Seriously? Is this all you think is involved with the grappling rules?

    I didn't say grabbing someone was complex. In that case, if that is the only distinction, then the systems for grappling in 3X, PF and 4E are all the same. You roll a d20 add a modifier and compare.

    The complexity is what follows after you make the successful grab.

    Could you summarize the grapple rules for me, since they are so simple? Much like Diffan did for the 4e version above? Because, when I'm at the table, and faced with both versions as presented in their respective books, I will pick the quickest one to resolve (and read) so that I can get back to the game. Much like all my rules, as I will use them all (a system I have to houserule the least, is a better system) and prefer whichever ones make my game smoother to prevent mechanics getting in the way and bogging down the Role-playing opportunities.

    Andoran

    Ok, you have a thing called a CMB. Combat Maneuver Bonus. It is your Base Attack plus your Strength mod (and size mod, if applicable). Your opponent has a thing called a CMD, combat maneuver defense. It is ten plus your BAB, STR mod and DEX mod (and size mod, if applicable). Roll a d20 and add CMB. If it's higher than the opponent's CMD you succeed. That's it. End of story.

    To maintain a grapple, you make the same check every round.

    To break a grapple, you roll your CMB or Escape Artist against the grappler's CMD.

    Wow. so complex. I didn't even have to look it up.


    Right, like I said it's not making the grapple, it's the adjudicating. Like what happens when I'm grappled? What about other grapplers? What can I do or not do while grappled? Those should be easy off the top of your head too right? Because it's not complex?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    To start, I would like to admit that I did NOT read every page or every post on the first page, but from what I saw I think a point needs to be made and hope someone else has pointed this out.

    First of all WotC no more owes you an appology for making a game system you don't like than Fox owes you one for making a movie you didn't enjoy or an author does for writing a trilogy ending you hated. These are single person or collabritive works that they hope, pray, and take leaps at to share what they think is going to be fun and enjoyable.

    Second, I really don't care if you own one book or 1000. Since 3rd edition there have been "Demo" boxes, packages, and what-have you to try the system. If you don't like it you didn't even spend money on the whole set of core books. Aside from this, the magical thing I am using now is called the internet and lets you read, see, hear about the new system before trying it.

    With that in mind WotC and every other company probably does not want the money of someone who doesn't like their game and thinks they deserve an apology for that. Especially since you are not buying their products anyways. If you are, tough **** that was your choice.

    Finally (for me anyways), everyone in the tabletop community that plays Pathfinder or D&D owes WotC a lot more than the money they shelled out for books. WotC helped to expand the fan base of the table-top community. They played around with new rules types, and saw the potential for X.5 editions. They reached out to the community to boost their game with the OGL as well.

    DO NOT blame hasboro or WoW or anything else. Sure any or all of these arguments may be included in their reasoning for doing 4th edition the way they did. But a lot of people we're thankful for it. You know what else? By doing this and by having the OGL and by expanding the industry WotC made it possible for Paizo to say "hey you know what lets do something different."

    Without 4E and that pardigm shift, do you think you would have Pathfinder today? Probably not.

    Frankly 5E should never get the hype that 4E did. You know why? Because the gaming community is robust enough that only can you play a more 3.5 ruleset (Pathfinder) but if it is significantly different and appreciated someone can make a 4E similar ruleset.

    Stop whining people and play what you like. Buy the old books you need from the converts and use your collection. They need to make money and people who don't like or want new editions aren't their concern. They need to bring in new people, and big changes is how to do it. Keeping a set community is NOT good for us. Even if it makes WotC bottom of the barrel, at least it's helping the community as a whole by allowing things like Pathfinder to flourish.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    houstonderek wrote:
    Ok, you have a thing called a CMB. Combat Maneuver Bonus. It is your Base Attack plus your Strength mod (and size mod, if applicable). Your opponent has a thing called a CMD, combat maneuver defense. It is ten plus your BAB, STR mod and DEX mod (and size mod, if applicable). Roll a d20 and add CMB. If it's higher than the opponent's CMD you succeed. That's it. End of story.

    Sure.

    Unless, of course, you don't have two hands free. In which case you suffer a -4 penalty to the CMB check.

    Oh, and remember that if your target fails to break out of a grapple, you gain a +5 bonus on your next check to maintain it.

    Oh, and keep in mind that maintaining the grapple also allows you to take one of four additional actions: moving, damaging, pinning, or tying up. And each of these actions has its own, special, grapple-only set of rules (for instance, moving while grappling halves your speed, and damage can only be done with unarmed, natural, armor spikes, light, or one-handed weapons - oh, and the damage can be nonlethal at your option, ignoring the usual -4 penalty!).

    Let's not also forget that breaking out of the grapple gives you the option of assuming control of the grappler, switching roles in the grapple.

    Also, creatures that join a grapple after the fact don't roll; they merely add an additional +2 to either side of the grapple.

    Oh good lord, and how could we forget the grappled condition that both parties gain! A condition that imposes a -4 penalty to Dexterity, a -2 penalty on attacks and CMB checks (except grappling!), prevents you from taking actions requiring two hands, calls for a concentration check (with its own unique DC formula!) to cast a spell, prevents AoOs, and prevents Stealth. Oh, and if that wasn't enough, that -4 penalty to Dexterity? That actually lowers your Combat Maneuver Defense on the fly by 2! Don't forget to take that into account!

    Quote:
    Wow. so complex. I didn't even have to look it up.

    Next time, look it up.

    Andoran

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
    houstonderek wrote:
    Ok, you have a thing called a CMB. Combat Maneuver Bonus. It is your Base Attack plus your Strength mod (and size mod, if applicable). Your opponent has a thing called a CMD, combat maneuver defense. It is ten plus your BAB, STR mod and DEX mod (and size mod, if applicable). Roll a d20 and add CMB. If it's higher than the opponent's CMD you succeed. That's it. End of story.

    You missed out that you take an AoO unless you have IMproved Grapple, and that if you take damage from the AoO that damage is added to the DC. Also if you are a humanoid and don't have two free hands you suffer a -4 penalty.

    Also you didn't indicate what the Grappled condition was.

    houstonderek wrote:
    To maintain a grapple, you make the same check every round.

    Again you left out that if your opponent failed to break out of the grapple your get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.

    Also what about all the options like Damage, Moving and Pinning?

    houstonderek wrote:
    To break a grapple, you roll your CMB or Escape Artist against the grappler's CMD.

    You don't mention the option to reverse the grapple, or perform an action that only requires one free hand. You also don't indicate what the rules are for casting a spell whilst grappled.

    Sorry to sound like I am having a go - but you are grossly oversimplifying how Pathfinder Grappling works. It is a much more complicated beast than the 4e Grab, though depending on the person that is no bad thing. I personally prefer the complexity of the 3.5 Grapple over 4e Grab, though I actualy have more issues with the PF grapple rules than either of those.

    Andoran

    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

    Damnit! Ninja'd by Scott :)

    Shadow Lodge

    IceniQueen wrote:
    To be honest I was very unhappy when TSR got taken over and Gygax lost out, then to see TSR go belly up because of a CEO that did not know the game or the industry and ran the company into the ground only to be bought by WoTC.

    I'll commit the cardinal sin of saying something bad about Gygax. One of the main reasons Gygax created 1E was to have an edition where Arneson wasn't getting royalties. So when the same thing happened to him with 2E, it's hard for me to have too much sympathy for the man. Karma's a b!!%$.

    Andoran

    Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
    Right, like I said it's not making the grapple, it's the adjudicating. Like what happens when I'm grappled? What about other grapplers? What can I do or not do while grappled? Those should be easy off the top of your head too right? Because it's not complex?

    You can attempt to break the grapple, reverse the grapple, possibly cast a spell or attack with a light one handed weapon. Spell casting would be subject to a concentration check, I suppose.

    If you're the grappler, you can move your opponent, attack, or pin. If the opponent is pinned or knocked out, you can tie them up.

    Andoran

    Ninja;d by everyone, apparently. Point is, there are a small handful of modifiers, nothing complicated, and all adjudicated by a single die roll.

    Shadow Lodge

    TTalent wrote:
    Systematically, WOTC is set up to fail, because the way it gets funding is to pitch business plans premised on making as much money as possible. This is why there are D&D "Fortune Cards" -- because Hasbro wants to make money, and since they're used to making money w/ randomized card packs (a.k.a. CCG), they're going to try and make D&D into a randomized card pack. This is why D&D has randomized miniatures.

    I've got news for you, buddy. Paizo's goal is also to make as much money as possible. And I find it rather ironic that you're blashing WotC for having randomized miniatures...perhaps you've not looked at Paizo's offerings as of late? I'll give you a few keywords to help in your search for knowledge: Pathfinder Battles, WizKids, prepainted miniatures.


    houstonderek wrote:
    Ninja;d by everyone, apparently. Point is, there are a small handful of modifiers, nothing complicated, and all adjudicated by a single die roll.

    Dude, no. There's like half a page worth of material on the grapple maneuver alone, plus the condition's explanation in the glossary, plus all of the implicit mechanics (like the Dex penalty affecting CMD scores) that need to be kept track of, too.

    I'm not saying it's a bad system. I tend to like my mechanics on the robust side. But let's not pretend it's a straightforward resolution. It's got all kinds of knobs and dials and meters.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Scott Betts wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:
    Ninja;d by everyone, apparently. Point is, there are a small handful of modifiers, nothing complicated, and all adjudicated by a single die roll.

    Dude, no. There's like half a page worth of material on the grapple maneuver alone, plus the condition's explanation in the glossary, plus all of the implicit mechanics (like the Dex penalty affecting CMD scores) that need to be kept track of, too.

    I'm not saying it's a bad system. I tend to like my mechanics on the robust side. But let's not pretend it's a straightforward resolution. It's got all kinds of knobs and dials and meters.

    Truth. When Grapples come up, we're typically scrambling for book entries or looking them up on Ipads to make sure it's getting handled correctly. It's not a big deal, though. The time involved in resolving it is minimal, although it's not exactly truthful to present it as painfully simplistic.

    Andoran

    And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    houstonderek wrote:
    And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

    Also true. I think simplistic might have been a misleading term. It's definitely not complicated to handle the math, it's just not particularly concise. It's not as basic as "I have this bonus, it applies to all situations," but it's not far from it either. More things begin to factor into it that are all dependent on other things. Some people are too lazy to track their own attack bonuses, though, and stuff like this just loses them. That doesn't speak poorly of the system. It's a somewhat pathetic account of lazy players.


    Maybe it's just a disagreement in terms.

    I was talking about the state of being while in a grapple being too complex in adjudicating, not the act of achieving a grapple in resolving. It's not too complex that I can't understand it, it is just more complex than I would rather deal with at the table.

    My last group was mostly rules lawyers (myself included), and the more involved the rules are the more we got involved into the rules. The smoother the rules, the smoother the gamepley, the more we get done in the short amount of time I get to play. I still want hard set rules to adjudicate things, I would just prefer that they be clean and simple enough to not easily devolve into RAW/RAI and "How does it work exactly?" discussions dominating the table.


    houstonderek wrote:
    And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

    Derek, you know we love you, but I'm going to have to side with Scott on this one. There are just far too many situational modifiers and fiddly bits to commit to memory. I'm sure the system works fine if most of those are glossed over, but that isn't following the RAW.


    Kagehiro wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:
    And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

    Also true. I think simplistic might have been a misleading term. It's definitely not complicated to handle the math, it's just not particularly concise. It's not as basic as "I have this bonus, it applies to all situations," but it's not far from it either. More things begin to factor into it that are all dependent on other things. Some people are too lazy to track their own attack bonuses, though, and stuff like this just loses them. That doesn't speak poorly of the system. It's a somewhat pathetic account of lazy players.

    Gotta disagree. Grappling isn't hard, but it is fiddly, and frankly the payoff for dealing with the fiddly bits just isn't t sufficient. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I'd call that poor design -- or at least design that is not to my taste. "Lazy" has no place in the conversation.


    THACO was a lot like the charts in the DMG, with one significant difference, there was a possibility that your "natural" 20 could still miss. Many people, it seems, have forgotton that the charts repeated a "20" for six armor class entries (at each progression) and included a note about how if the armor class was sufficiently high, even a roll of 20 could miss, and only would succeed if the roll of a twenty, plus modifiers, exceeded the number listed after the repeated six entries of "20". Yes there was a time in the history of this game, when it was possible to miss when you rolled a natural 20.


    Terquem wrote:
    THACO was a lot like the charts in the DMG, with one significant difference, there was a possibility that your "natural" 20 could still miss. Many people, it seems, have forgotton that the charts repeated a "20" for six armor class entries (at each progression) and included a note about how if the armor class was sufficiently high, even a roll of 20 could miss, and only would succeed if the roll of a twenty, plus modifiers, exceeded the number listed after the repeated six entries of "20". Yes there was a time in the history of this game, when it was possible to miss when you rolled a natural 20.

    I remember when 2E came out, with its automatic hits and misses, THAC0 became a sore point in "discussions" about the games. Not like the falling out over 3E/4E, mind you, but more of a "not in my game" sort of way.


    Bugleyman wrote:
    Gotta disagree. Grappling isn't hard, but it is fiddly, and frankly the payoff for dealing with the fiddly bits just isn't t sufficient. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I'd call that poor design -- or at least design that is not to my taste. "Lazy" has no place in the conversation.

    My primary objection to grapple is the way (in 3.5, at least) it can be stopped with a single point of damage from an AoO.

    After the complete mess made of unarmed combat in AD&D, anything is better, and we old-timers are grateful.

    But I've never understood why it has to be made so complicated. Why can't the individual actions of the grapple process simply be actions in their own right, with caveats that other actions have to be successful before them?

    I will hand it to Paizo that they made an effort to clean it up. I don't know how 4E does it, but it really needs to be re-vamped.

    A suggestion during the playtest, maybe?


    Kthulhu wrote:
    I'll commit the cardinal sin of saying something bad about Gygax. One of the main reasons Gygax created 1E was to have an edition where Arneson wasn't getting royalties. So when the same thing happened to him with 2E, it's hard for me to have too much sympathy for the man. Karma's a b~*&!.

    I did not know that. My problem with what TSR did to Gygax wasn't that, however. It was the appearance of them having an entire legal arm whose sole purpose was to ensure Gygax was never allowed to do anything connected to any RPG, ever again. I think everything that had his name on it post TSR earned a lawsuit.

    Andoran

    bugleyman wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:
    And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".
    Derek, you know we love you, but I'm going to have to side with Scott on this one. There are just far too many situational modifiers and fiddly bits to commit to memory. I'm sure the system works fine if most of those are glossed over, but that isn't following the RAW.

    Honestly, I do forget that a lot of people don't play the way Kirth, TOZ and our group does. Yeah, some of the "fiddly" parts are more or less glossed over.

    Mea culpa.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
    Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
    Kthulhu wrote:
    I'll commit the cardinal sin of saying something bad about Gygax. One of the main reasons Gygax created 1E was to have an edition where Arneson wasn't getting royalties. So when the same thing happened to him with 2E, it's hard for me to have too much sympathy for the man. Karma's a b~*&!.
    I did not know that. My problem with what TSR did to Gygax wasn't that, however. It was the appearance of them having an entire legal arm whose sole purpose was to ensure Gygax was never allowed to do anything connected to any RPG, ever again. I think everything that had his name on it post TSR earned a lawsuit.

    At least until WotC bought TSR. Have to give them credit for the things they did right.


    houstonderek wrote:
    Honestly, I do forget that a lot of people don't play the way Kirth, TOZ and our group does. Yeah, some of the "fiddly" parts are more or less glossed over.

    Sounds like an amazing game. :)

    Andoran

    bugleyman wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:
    Honestly, I do forget that a lot of people don't play the way Kirth, TOZ and our group does. Yeah, some of the "fiddly" parts are more or less glossed over.
    Sounds like an amazing game. :)

    It is. Most fun I've had since my old early '90s "strippers and dealers" 1e game. The players, not the campaign...

    Shadow Lodge

    So, . . . your basis for saying others are wrong (and giving some attitude) is that you don't actually play by the rules.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    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?

    I certainly hope so.


    Beckett wrote:
    So, . . . your basis for saying others are wrong (and giving some attitude) is that you don't actually play by the rules.

    Where's he saying that? Because, that's not what I'm reading..

    Shadow Lodge

    "Wow. so complex. I didn't even have to look it up."


    Beckett wrote:
    "Wow. so complex. I didn't even have to look it up."

    Ja?

    And?

    To me, that reads as if he's just being snarky with how simple the rule was to him now. That's all.

    251 to 300 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.