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)

351 to 400 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kagehiro wrote:
2nd Edition plays like Baldur's Gate. There, I said it. Been meaning to get that off my chest for a while.

Considering Baldur's Gate is based on the 2nd Edition rules, I'd hope so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sebastrd wrote:
Kagehiro wrote:
2nd Edition plays like Baldur's Gate. There, I said it. Been meaning to get that off my chest for a while.
Considering Baldur's Gate is based on the 2nd Edition rules, I'd hope so.

I know it's hard to convey it in text sometimes, but I thought the sarcasm in my post was pretty overt.


Trying to draw the MMO crowd into your imagination based game by emulating what are primarily the unseen (the math) portions sounds moronic. If you want to attract video game hobbyists within a video game age, you need to offer them everything they currently have and 1up it. Its akin to a novelist shrugging off loyal readers in hopes of drawing in hardcore comic/TPB fans without the visuals. In both cases, its at least 50% (..I'd wager much higher) of the reason why those people are there to begin with. Only the smallest tired or burned out portion of (video) gamers are going to drop, trade or sacrifice their traditional gaming time for imagination & game-piece hour. Only a small portion of MMO'ers even know what tabletop gaming is, much less what its about. Within the small portion of that population that somewhat understands both, is the belief that role-playing is the sport of an older generation. A generation playing out of habit, aged preferences and a lack of experience with the immersive worlds offered by modern video games.

As for myself and 5e, it wont be an easy sell for WotC. Between Paizo and a strong variety filled 'ears open' indie market, there aren't many reasons for me to care about much that is Dungeons & Dragons. Not with a brand that IMO has too often shrugged off its supporters. Its a tired pattern personally, and there's enough out there within the hobby, that settling for such is by no means necessary.

Shadow Lodge

You didn't call anyone out, I just dropped it. I think it's pretty crappy to tell people that their concerns and opinions are wrong and that it's actually easy (regardless that I agree it's easy) and then clarify that you don't actually use the very rules they are talking about. Its not nerd rage, it decency, especially when the overall topic is was going into another 4E vs 3E vs all other E's downward spiral, you (maybe inadvertantly) instigated it more, so basiclly invalidating your entire point and strengthing the false idea that one system is bad.

Andoran

I've never, not one time, on these boards, said 4e was a bad system. I just don't think the CMB thing is that hard to use. It certainly isn't the 1e craziness of the grapple/overbear/pummel system.

I've actually never seen the 4e mechanic used, it's never been attempted in a game I've played (and I played some this weekend at a con), so I have no idea how easy or hard it is compared to PF or earlier editions. I don't own the books, nor do I have a DDI sub, so I can't really look at them either right now to form an opinion.

Saying one thing is easy isn't the same as saying something else is bad. False equivalency.

(And memorax and I weren't discussing grappling in those last two posts, more of a continuation of a (now settled) conversation over the last few days)

Shadow Lodge

That's not the issue. People are saying that they did have issues with the 3E Grapple rules. You said it's easy, it's a no brainer, etc. . . and then say that you house rule it, so it's easy for you.

We need to just drop it though. It wasn't my intention to stat a stupid arguing match but rather to not start one.


I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.

I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.

Shadow Lodge

I agree. I hated that about 4E, as it quickly made most classes feel basically the same. I remember an non-optimized Wizard having the same or better defenses than practically every other character, because you got to choose between two stats for them all, which favored the Wizard most of the time.


Terquem wrote:

I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.

I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.

See, I liked how I didn't have to be MAD (multiple attribute dependant) for characters that can cast a bit and are supposed to fight on the front lines. A most prime example of this is the Paladin. By having him use Charisma for his attacks, he doens't have to put a TON of emphasis on Strength and Charisma fueled a lot of his Mo-jo too. I love that sort of synergy.

I also think the only reason physical wepaon attacks are only done through Str and Dex was just to simulate real-world physics (something that is a bit controversial, so I'll steer clear) and that when you force classes to use them AND have a resonable amount of points in other attributes to their other stuff well....it causes problems. The 3E paladin needed high Strength for his attacks, moderate Constitution for HP due to him being on the front lines, moderate- to high-Charisma that fuels ALL of his class features, and moderate-Wisdom because it's what his spells were pulled from. PF made his spellcasting tie into Charisma, which is fine, but that doesn't mean with a 28 point buy he'll be in any good shape for perform as expected (from what I expect a paladin to do anyways). A Wizard, OTOH, can dump Charisma, Strength and keep Wisdom at about 10 and still function extreamly well with 28 point buy or any point buy system. He then takes Toughness and a Toad familiar and "BAM" 11 hp at 1st level.


So you are saying, I think, that it is harder to be a great paladin than it is to be a great wizard.

Okay. For my campaign world that works great, again for me. But I can see how it seems everyone who wants to play this game wants to be a great "whatever" right out of the gate. And that's okay as well, but it isn't how I've played for all these years. Most of the time the players in my campaigns are just slightly above average, and then become great as they adventure.

Take a look at the requirements to be a Druid, Paladin, or Ranger in the first edition (AD&D) and then you might know where I'm coming from. You could not be these classes in any kind of point buy system unless the DM was very forgiving.

Shadow Lodge

As a house rule, I would allow people to play those classes, but they got the min in all the required stats, and usually got a 10 in all others, (depending on the number of requirements). I'm also thinking more 2E, but similar concept, (where I think a Pali needed 4 stats all fairly good 14+, for example).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


Good lord, is everyone convinced that Hasbro decides how D&D is played?

People are looking for pretexts to stand on soapboxes. Hasbro is as good as any.

I just have one reply to them. WOTC has already written you off as customers. You can stand on your soapboxes and beat your chests to your hearts content, and you will. But basic business strategy doesn't revolve around you. It revolves around the rest of the population, those who are the experimental type called the "early adopters" and those who are open to other possibilities than the status quo.

Shadow Lodge

Diffan wrote:
PF made his spellcasting tie into Charisma, which is fine, but that doesn't mean with a 28 point buy he'll be in any good shape for perform as expected (from what I expect a paladin to do anyways). A Wizard, OTOH, can dump Charisma, Strength and keep Wisdom at about 10 and still function extreamly well with 28 point buy or any point buy system. He then takes Toughness and a Toad familiar and "BAM" 11 hp at 1st level

I couldn't agree more, but for me it's the Cleric and Monk, and my largest case against Point Buy, which I hate. I'm not sure 4E improved this, it changed it, but I think it more created a different problem than fix the last one.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I cleaned up some posts. Play nice.

Andoran

Beckett wrote:

That's not the issue. People are saying that they did have issues with the 3E Grapple rules. You said it's easy, it's a no brainer, etc. . . and then say that you house rule it, so it's easy for you.

We need to just drop it though. It wasn't my intention to stat a stupid arguing match but rather to not start one.

No, I said I have no problems with Pathfinder's rules. CMB/CMD is easy. Much easier than 3.5's rules.


Terquem wrote:

So you are saying, I think, that it is harder to be a great paladin than it is to be a great wizard.

Okay. For my campaign world that works great, again for me. But I can see how it seems everyone who wants to play this game wants to be a great "whatever" right out of the gate. And that's okay as well, but it isn't how I've played for all these years. Most of the time the players in my campaigns are just slightly above average, and then become great as they adventure.

I never said I wanted to be great right out of the gate, but I do expect my character to perform adequately with this class features. Strapping a Single ability score that works for other class features is a good thing IMO, not something bad. A paladin that can use Charisma for his attacks doesn't have to rely on Strength and this is heightened by your NDAs (non-Armor Defenses: Fort/Ref/Will) as they take the better of your two ability scores like Str or Con for Fort, Dex or Int for Reflex, and Wis or Cha for Willpower. Of course, there is a lot of feats that require moderate Strength score requirments so they can't be completley dumped either.

Terquem wrote:


Take a look at the requirements to be a Druid, Paladin, or Ranger in the first edition (AD&D) and then you might know where I'm coming from. You could not be these classes in any kind of point buy system unless the DM was very forgiving.

I've seen them and it's yet one more reason why I abhor that edition and can't ever seeing myself playing it. There are some who like it and I don't begrudge them for it, it's just not for me.

@ Beckett: I agree with you for the Monk as I've never seen anyone play that class very well in 3E. They either die or automatically go the Vow of Poverty route (which is.....well just so wrong IMO). So that coupled with their sort of aim-less direction and scope, it really is a difficult class to play until about 8th or 9th level (then it becomes berable, of course IMO). As for the cleric, well that's a personal favorite of mine and I really didn't have any problems with Point Buy and that class. You can skate by with 10's in Int and Dex and 12's in Con and Cha. Grab a 16 in Wisdom and maybe a 14 in Strength and your not bad when you take into account spells and domain powers.

And I'm a firm believer that 4E did something right with the approach of Weapon-based attacks being off multiple attribtues instead of being funnled directly through Strength all the time. The Monk in 4E is simply amazing. Most of his attacks allow extra movement or damage and he's just so darn interesting. I built one explicidly for a Dark Sun campaign my friend wants to run. Basically because I can kill stuff pretty well and I don't need weapons or armor to do it, lol.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
No, I said I have no problems with Pathfinder's rules. CMB/CMD is easy. Much easier than 3.5's rules.

Really? In reference to Grapple rules, do you feel the PF rules are easier than 3.5? Or are you just talking about the general CMB/CMD mechanic across all Combat Manouevres?

I personally feel PF grapple is as complicated as 3.5, but made a little more difficult by spreading the rules across several chapters of the book, making some things less intuitive and making things seem simpler by making a blanket statement ("Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform") that actually makes things vague (they had to errata the fact that you can actually full attack following dispute on that matter) rather than spelling out exactly what you can and can't do in a grapple as 3.5 did.

Andoran

I haven't opened my core book up in a long time, I just use the SRD, which has everything in one place, so I didn't realize the book was like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Terquem wrote:

I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.

I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.

See, I liked how I didn't have to be MAD (multiple attribute dependant) for characters that can cast a bit and are supposed to fight on the front lines. A most prime example of this is the Paladin. By having him use Charisma for his attacks, he doens't have to put a TON of emphasis on Strength and Charisma fueled a lot of his Mo-jo too. I love that sort of synergy.

I also think the only reason physical wepaon attacks are only done through Str and Dex was just to simulate real-world physics (something that is a bit controversial, so I'll steer clear) and that when you force classes to use them AND have a resonable amount of points in other attributes to their other stuff well....it causes problems. The 3E paladin needed high Strength for his attacks, moderate Constitution for HP due to him being on the front lines, moderate- to high-Charisma that fuels ALL of his class features, and moderate-Wisdom because it's what his spells were pulled from. PF made his spellcasting tie...

This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.


Carl Cascone wrote:
This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.

I don't think it has to do with common sense at all. Sure, strength/dexterity can play a part in physical attacks, but the be all-end all? NO, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" and weight around 160 lbs. Yet D&D is supposed to give a nod to that sort of time and combat technique. So if (s)he's not hefting a huge sword with unparalelled Strength, how is (s)he able to defeat his/her opponents? Obviously one can be more quick/agile (Dex) or just take extreme punishment (Con) but what about the guy who's intelligent? Who knows what your going to do before you do? Or the guy who's seen countless battles and has that extra sensory perception (Wisdom) or that guy who is just fearsome or intimidating as all hell (Cha). They might not be paragons of Strength but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to fight or be good at melee/Ragned fighting either. Heck, some Bows require a exceptionally high Strengh just to pull back on, and that's just not for the composite types but Longbows too.

What I'm getting at is that there are tons of factors to delve into for fighting and while Strength and Dexterity are the easiest to codify/accept, they shouldn't be the only ways in which physical combat can be accomplished.


Diffan wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:
This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.

I don't think it has to do with common sense at all. Sure, strength/dexterity can play a part in physical attacks, but the be all-end all? NO, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" and weight around 160 lbs.

You make a descent case for it, in fact the only one that makes sense, but I still prefer the physical stat/mental stat separation. I would be more willing to allow the mental abilities to add in different ways.

What struck a nerve with me in your post (not in a bad way necessarily) is the misconception of the height of a KNight. Knights actually were rather tall, because there are many that would not be able to cut the warrior class because of the weapons (A flamberge was easily 8 pounds)and the sheer weight of armor. Knights had to be incredibly strong (I am not going to pretend to put a D&D number to it). I have had the pleasure of fighting in full on plate mail, and intelligence is not going to pull you through THAT:)

Unfortunately much of the preserved armor is later than 13th century, but archaeologists estimate the average height of NOBLES in briton and Normandy to be about 5'7" -5'8". Much goes into this estimate, from the size of weaponry, the size of shields, saddles, tack, and of course skeleton measurements.

Funny enough MANY nobles also were Dwarfs (the genetic condition, necessary to say that here,) because of the breeding.

So I will give you the abilities.

Its true poorer people were shorter than nobles, but the idea that people in the Middle Ages were extremely short is a misconception.


Carl Cascone wrote:

You make a descent case for it, in fact the only one that makes sense, but I still prefer the physical stat/mental stat separation. I would be more willing to allow the mental abilities to add in different ways.

What struck a nerve with me in your post (not in a bad way necessarily) is the misconception of the height of a KNight. Knights actually were rather tall, because there are many that would not be able to cut the warrior class because of the weapons (A flamberge was easily 8 pounds)and the sheer weight of armor. Knights had to be incredibly strong (I am not going to pretend to put a D&D number to it). I have had the pleasure of fighting in full on plate mail, and intelligence is not going to pull you through THAT:)

Unfortunately much of the preserved armor is later than 13th century, but archaeologists estimate the average height of NOBLES in briton and Normandy to be about 5'7" -5'8". Much goes into this estimate, from the size of weaponry, the size of shields, saddles, tack, and of course skeleton measurements.

Funny enough MANY nobles also were Dwarfs (the genetic condition, necessary to say that here,) because of the breeding.

So I will give you the abilities.

Its true poorer people were shorter than nobles, but the idea that people in the Middle Ages were extremely short is a misconception.

Fair enough, though I think it might have to do with what part of the world your drawing your knights from. And while I'd love to get into a discussion of military warfare of the medieval period, I think it derails this topic a bit, lol. I wouldn't mind seeing a feat that allows players to go through a different stat (of their choice) when making attack rolls. Something like 4th Editions's Melee Training feat which says:

Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.

This would apply for all attacks as I don't see them keeping "Basic Melee Attacks" with D&D-Next


Diffan wrote:


Fair enough, though I think it might have to do with what part of the world your drawing your knights from. And while I'd love to get into a discussion of military warfare of the medieval period, I think it derails this topic a bit, lol. I wouldn't mind seeing a feat that allows players to go through a different stat (of their choice) when making attack rolls. Something like 4th Editions's Melee Training feat which says:

Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use...

I can easily be on board with STR/DEX being the primary weapon stat and then having a feat that allows you to replace one of those with INT/WIS/CHR. It makes it work for me. Much like the feat Noble Scion in the INner sea world guide. Every paladin should have that feat, (using CHA as your initiative statistic), though the background is for noble birth so you can only take it at first level.

I envision it as the Paladin shouting a challenge or insult, or something that causes the opponent a moment of shock and fear. Really good feat.

I like the idea of a FEAT allowing the ability to be replaced. I am opposed to an arbitrary assignment with whatever ability works best for your class features.


This is not the article I wanted to link, but this one should be an adequate summary about the stability of height across the periods.

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=3995

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one.

People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

It's one thing to say we can do x better. It's another to say "if you used x in your 3.5 game, then it probably wasn't much fun." That's the kind of thing that ticked people off.


Well, knights (and non-noble cavalry men-at-arms that were part of noble's retinue) used to be better off than a common man around the world. Meat was a luxury at those times, but these people certainly had better access to it thanks to sitting at the top of the chain (able to hunt or buy meat, more varied other foods), so they didn't suffer from malnutrition or bad food composition nearly as much. They also spent a lot of their time practicing with weapons and drilling (hunt is actually counted in this for example) and they didn't engage in a typical backbreaking labour of lower classes.

Due to this the nobles and their retinue had to be healthier and probably stronger than common men, although I could see them at 15 STR top.

Shadow Lodge

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one.

People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

It's one thing to say we can do x better. It's another to say "if you used x in your 3.5 game, then it probably wasn't much fun." That's the kind of thing that ticked people off.

Who where you responding to?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

My feelings? It's vaporware, and all those Monte/Mike columns are a smokescreen set up so that they can frantically prepare a ruleset that gives them any sliver of hope for competing against the Industry Leader.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

Who where you responding to?

I was responding to the above quote. When WotC was hyping 4E, especially before they revealed much in the way of mechanics, their 4E "marketing" was essentially trashing 3.5 or certain styles of play. James Wyatt ranted about how the 3.5 paladin sucked because he could only smite a few times a day. They put in print things like "D&D isn't about traipsing through fairy rings," and "If you used profession skills in your games, then they probably weren't very fun." If they had said, "Some people had a problem with this in 3.5, so here is how we are trying to improve it in the new edition," it would have been much better received than trashing 3.5 and any style of play that didn't revolve around killing every monster you see like murderous hobos.

Shadow Lodge

Ok, just trying to understand what you meant.


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

To me, the major failure of 4E was in the fluff. Both 4E and Pathfinder have major flaws (my opinion) in game play.

Where Paizo and WotC are different are that WotC failed to produce any decent modules or a cool world (or, at least, in the first 2 years, after that I gave up because my gamer friends gave up). In fact, they seemingly intentionally AVOIDED producing cool settings and adventures.

Paizo has an awesome world with tons of amazing adventures.

It shouldn't be a mystery as to why Pathfinder is succeeding and 4E is dying.


The selling point for Pathfinder in my group is the existence of the adventure paths. One of the GM's runs it almost exclusively due to that one fact alone. He hates making encounters past level 11, and the AP's take that hurdle away from him.

Shadow Lodge

Oddly though, that was a major thing about 4E, in that it simplified monster stat blocks for all levels. As much as I do not like it, I can attest to that aspect of the game being true.


arkady_v wrote:

To me, the major failure of 4E was in the fluff. Both 4E and Pathfinder have major flaws (my opinion) in game play.

Where Paizo and WotC are different are that WotC failed to produce any decent modules or a cool world (or, at least, in the first 2 years, after that I gave up because my gamer friends gave up). In fact, they seemingly intentionally AVOIDED producing cool settings and adventures.

Paizo has an awesome world with tons of amazing adventures.

It shouldn't be a mystery as to why Pathfinder is succeeding and 4E is dying.

I agree, they did have a stated anti-deep fluff policy ('no fluff beyond that pc's could be quickly told in play' or something like that iirc) and it was a major factor in 4e's failure if you ask me.

What worries me ... well okay, it doesn't 'worry me' ... but I have yet to see any sign they have moved away from that. Everything seems to be about the rules, often to levels of absurdity, but rules are far from everything. I'd have still bought 4e setting books and adventures if they'd had great, detailed, imaginative fluff in them - despite loathing the game system itself with a firey passion.

If they don't address the anti-fluff policy of the 4e era - the policy that smashed cherished settings into paste, and gave us such memorable settings as ... 'the points of light world' - then I suspect 5e will go the same way as 4th - no matter how amazing the rules.


I'm not a designer but... It's probably important when creating a rules system for your next edition to focus on creating those rules...

These boards are an interesting look for me into the views of the role player community. My local groups have almost always used homebrew settings or Forgotten Realms. We almost exclusively play homebrew adventures/campaigns and I am always more immersed when playing a homebrew adventure as apposed to a pre written one. So I guess 4e's/WotC's lack of focus in this area has never really effected me.


I too write my own adventures, but I am always on the watch for stuff to mine from published books. It's the single, sole reason I buy gaming books tbh, I have no need or wish for new rules.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

I agree with the thought that using Charisma for a bonus to "to hit" rolls is ridiculous. However, a counter-point to the idea that Strength and Dexterity should be the only stats providing "to hit" bonuses: fighting intelligently is very important. Being able to perceive flaws in your opponent's defense, notice errors so that you can take advantage of them, formulate strategies and execute them "in real time" to make an opening in your opponent's guard... (and in ranged combat, ability to read the wind, weather and environment, estimate range, etc)-- there's a good argument for using 'Intelligence' as well for combat modifiers, and for using whatever stat affects your perceptive abilities. Also any stat that covers how lucky you are....

I played a lot of RuneQuest back in the day (1st and 2nd edition Chaosium; never made the switch to 3rd edition/Avalon Hill RuneQuest)-- RuneQuest used Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Power to determine attack bonuses ('Power' being a RuneQuest-specific stat that determined your ability to fuel magic, some sense of how lucky you were, your willpower, and such things-- there was no separate Wisdom stat). And, as it was explained in the rule-book, all of these stats adding in to your attack bonuses made sense. As I recall, Intelligence didn't help with your parry bonus, on the premise that that was much more pure reaction than an attack was. Strength and Size formed your damage bonus. Dexterity was probably the most important stat for the "attack" and "parry" bonuses (coordination, reflexes, etc., obviously ought to be seen as vital), but the game (correctly, IMO) made the point that being strong enough to really throw that weapon around and change up its motion in spite of the weapon's inertia really does help in attacking and defending with most melee weapons. The most important point to the RuneQuest method, I think, is that it's not an "either strength helps or dexterity helps, but not both"-- that it's all of the factors combined rather than just one at a time.

Silver Crusade

Interesting discussion so far.

Personally, I played 4E for about a year when it first came out-- didn't like it, don't play it anymore.

I played a lot of 3.5, and am currently playing PF (as well as some other, non-D&D RPGs). I've played most of the editions of D&D, except Basic and the BECMI chain, and I've played a lot of other RPGs in my life.

From 5th edition/D&D-Next: at this point, I really don't expect anything from WotC anymore. I'm trying to look at this with no expectations, when my gut reaction is to reject anything WotC/Hasbro does (yes, I admit that's not fair to them-- that's why I'm controlling it and trying to keep an open mind). I hope it's an excellent game, I fear it's going to suck. The more I discuss things on Paizo's boards... I will most likely play D&D 5E at some point, because someone in the game groups I'm in will likely insist on running it. If it's great, I'll pick it up. I'll probably stick with PF anyway, as long as some of my buddies are still running it.

I think though, when I get done with my current return to college-- that when I start GMing RPGs again, it probably won't be any D&D-derived system (including PF)-- so for PF and D&D, I'm probably just continuing to be a player from here on out (though once upon a time-- I ran a lot of D&D games, in every edition I've played but 4E and PF).

Still, interesting conversation-- I think I'll keep following it.


I played and ran some games of 4e, and it was fun, for the most part. Combat seemed to take a long time at high levels, and it felt very tactical - appealed to the wargamers. I have a pretty sizable collection of actual books, but I sort of lost interest and focus when Essentials came out. Never had any interest in paying for online-only content.

I'm in "wait and see" mode with 5e. At this point, I have so much material from Paizo in the form of additional books and adventure paths, that I don't see making a big investment in the next iteration of D&D.

In other words, the Pathfinder hardcovers have enough stuff in them to keep me going for years. And with the new content coming out in the form of adventure paths, I'm all set. Yes, some of us still like the solid thunk of books on the table - if WotC wants to further move things away from the table and onto a screen, I'm personally not going to like that. Paizo gives customers the option to go digital with the pdf availability. I like that.


Beckett wrote:
Oddly though, that was a major thing about 4E, in that it simplified monster stat blocks for all levels. As much as I do not like it, I can attest to that aspect of the game being true.

Even the people in my gaming group who despise 4E admit that it's Monster manual was the best of any edition, and one of the best from any game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, its strange but . . . I had one annoying problem with 4e. It was too radical a design for me to accept as D&D.

Cheliax

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

My only real feelings towards a new edition are that while I think the design intent (something for everyone) is noble, past experience with ... well ... everything; cars, cookies, clothing, tv shows, games ... is that no two tastes are alike.

Sure, sometimes you fluke out, and you find that enough of what you've done appeals to the gestalt of a community to be accepted as a whole, as popular products tend to do; Pathfinder, iPods, Soft Drinks, etc. I feel this attributes largely to the success of a product like Pathfinder. Pathfinder's appeal was never to be the game for everyone, it was meant to be the game for people who like the principles set forth in the 3rd edition rules set. And it caught on like wild fire.

Having said that, on the whole, I think your average gamer isn't ready to be faced with the amount of decision points a system like Next; where everything is largely optional, seems to be pointing towards. There's such thing as too much choice, where the eventual outcome for a group of players is analysis paralysis.

We see this already, even in systems that are largely fixed to begin with, "What is Core?, What isn't?, What's Core in yours", etc., etc. When the answer is everything and nothing, depending on your group, this has the potential to be frustrating.

Add to that, I find, regardless of what the messageboards say, the average gamer is also a horrible judge of evaluating the impact of one rule over another. While I know WoTC will endeavour to make sure everything is "balanced", there is just no possible way to field test all the permutations of optionals piled onto optionals piled onto other optionals to see which combination creates an exceptional, or completely disasterous, playing experience. And, if it goes for crap, people will blame the system because it "it didn't work the way I wanted it to."

I could be completely wrong. I just think if the end result is a core book, with a series of "Player's Options" materials, more choices may cause more confusion - and that's never a good thing.


Finn K wrote:
Terquem wrote:

I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

I agree with the thought that using Charisma for a bonus to "to hit" rolls is ridiculous. However, a counter-point to the idea that Strength and Dexterity should be the only stats providing "to hit" bonuses: fighting intelligently is very important. Being able to perceive flaws in your opponent's defense, notice errors so that you can take advantage of them, formulate strategies and execute them "in real time" to make an opening in your opponent's guard... (and in ranged combat, ability to read the wind, weather and environment, estimate range, etc)-- there's a good argument for using 'Intelligence' as well for combat modifiers, and for using whatever stat affects your perceptive abilities. Also any stat that covers how lucky you are....

I played a lot of RuneQuest back in the day (1st and 2nd edition Chaosium; never made the switch to 3rd edition/Avalon Hill RuneQuest)-- RuneQuest used Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Power to determine attack bonuses ('Power' being a RuneQuest-specific stat that determined your ability to fuel magic, some sense of how lucky you were, your willpower, and such things-- there was no separate Wisdom stat). And, as it was explained in the rule-book, all of these stats adding in to your attack bonuses made sense. As I recall, Intelligence didn't help with your parry bonus, on the premise that that was much more pure reaction than an attack was. Strength and Size formed your damage bonus....

You know what would actually be wonderful? If you could base attack and defense on any two ability scores to create a fighting style and later pick feats based on emphasizing your preferred combination that you could utilize based on what combination you are using at the moment.

Strength is for heavy blows, Dexterity for speed, constitution for an avalanche of exhausting blows, intelligence for claculation of enemy moves, wisdom for spotting opportunities to do harm and charisma for bluffing and misleading.

So a samurai could primarily rely on dexterity for signature lightning-quick strikes and and wisdom for spotting for placing a perfect blow through the defense (negation of attack, bonus to hit upon a foe that misses him).

A calculating swordsman could be dexterous to parry and intelligent to dismantle the defense of his foe (negation of attack, increasing attack bonuses if attacking single foe).

A hulking greataxe-wielding brute could rely strength and constitution (bonus damage, extra attacks in exchange for possible fatigue).

Not that it will come to pass, but it could be interesting...


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
arkady_v wrote:

To me, the major failure of 4E was in the fluff. Both 4E and Pathfinder have major flaws (my opinion) in game play.

Where Paizo and WotC are different are that WotC failed to produce any decent modules or a cool world (or, at least, in the first 2 years, after that I gave up because my gamer friends gave up). In fact, they seemingly intentionally AVOIDED producing cool settings and adventures.

Paizo has an awesome world with tons of amazing adventures.

It shouldn't be a mystery as to why Pathfinder is succeeding and 4E is dying.

Paizo have definitely disproved the sometimes stated "conventional wisdom" that it makes more sense to target players rather than DMs (on the grounds that only one person in any given group will buy an adventure whereas potentially several will buy a rules supplement).

Presumably that belief is countered by the power the DM has in selecting the game system (and perhaps by a propensity for RPGers to purchase books they don't actually need).

While I agree with you that the neglect of fleshed out settings was likely to have contributed to 4E's disappointing performance, I'm kind of hoping they persist with the "target players not DMs" strategy. For my purposes a company specializing in rules whilst another specializes in flavor suits me down to the ground.

I wonder whether there was a view that they were "targeting homebrewers" or something?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why the "MY FEELINGS ABOUT 5E D&D" thread has become an excuse for a bunch of haters to wander in and b**** about why they despise 4E.

Please start your own thread somewhere else. 4E has been out for almost four years now, and not a single one of you has brought up anything that hasn't already been complained about ad nauseum here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Might we get back to ill-advised and ill-informed speculation about 5E now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Sebastrd wrote:
I don't understand why the "MY FEELINGS ABOUT 5E D&D" thread has become an excuse for a bunch of haters to wander in and b**** about why they despise 4E.

Because their feelings about 5E are informed by their feelings about 4E? Doesn't sound unreasonable to me, even if it isn't exactly new.

351 to 400 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.