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

RPG Superstar 2015

DND Next Similar to 3.5


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

Grand Lodge

So I'm just gonna come out and say it.

This game looks very similar to 3.5.

Martial characters actually use their weapons normally, once more.

Casters are back to Vancian Magic.

Grease works exactly as it did in 3.5. Command is still incredible. Even Alarm is back.

The tiers of armor are a bit tweaked, but still give almost effectively the same bonuses, and the way they handle DEX bonuses are different now.

Overall, it looks like WOTC has decided to go more the way of 3.5's design philosophy.

Silver Crusade

I am waiting for the rulebook to land on gaming store shelves before I make my judgement. I hope it is not 3.5 again, but I am pretty sure I do not want it to be 4e again either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They've definitely jettisoned a lot of the unique 4e mechanics, so I guess it feels 3.5 by default. The playtest rules are scaled down to just the core, though, and actually comes across feeling more like 2nd Ed. or even Basic D&D in the way it's presented in broad strokes.

Frankly, as much as I've come to love 4e, I really have to say I'm pleased with how much it just feels like Dungeons & Dragons, edition number be damned.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Fletch wrote:
They've definitely jettisoned a lot of the unique 4e mechanics, so I guess it feels 3.5 by default. The playtest rules are scaled down to just the core, though, and actually comes across feeling more like 2nd Ed. or even Basic D&D in the way it's presented in broad strokes.

I would say the same thing.

And, I like it.


It has even more of a retro feel than 3.5, to me. Somewhere between 2E and 3E, I think.

But there are 4E elements tainting the taste.

Maybe the AD&D flavor will strengthen with feedback from the playtest. :)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be amused if D&D Next is 'close enough' to 3.x that people could make suppliments to it under the OGL. :-)


If it can handle 3.5, it should be able to handle Pathfinder, too.

And something tells me that's been WotC's idea all along.... >:)


It's taken a lot of the good things of 4e and put them into 3.5 is the way I see it.

I do like how they got rid of ac scaling and other forms of scaling and the need for magic items. By the looks of things E6 games will be much more viable under 5e. The background and themes are welcome additions as well.

Hopefully there will a more developed weapon system but overall I'm quite happy with what I've seen so far. Looking forward to the next packet :)


Looking at the beta so far, I think I can easily adapt material from OD&D for use with it. In fact, I'm going to use the Caves of Chaos as an on-demand XP farm and start using the 2nd Ed AD&D Karameikos boxed set and OD&D Poor Wizards' Almanac to structure my campaign for D&D Next moving forward. I think most monsters will integrate pretty seamlessly with just some minor tweaks here and there based on the Bestiary document... though I'm trying not to go too crazy with homebrew so that my feedback will be valid.

Once they hit level 2 or 3, I may even convert Jason Bulmahn's "Kill Bargle!" from the last issue of Dungeon. It's nice to be back in Mystara. =]

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hit points? Check.
AC? Check.
Six stats, 3-18? Check.
Classes? Check.
Races? Check.
Saving Throws? Check.

Yup, looks a lot like 3.5.

And 4th, and 3rd, and 2nd, and 1st, and basic...

Liberty's Edge

Personally, I find it to be midway between 3.0 and 2e. For me, that is a good thing. Although I wonder how much of the 2e/old school feel is due to the presentation. White page, black letters and all that.

But I really like it. Much more than I expected to.

The Exchange

Jeremiziah wrote:

Personally, I find it to be midway between 3.0 and 2e. For me, that is a good thing. Although I wonder how much of the 2e/old school feel is due to the presentation. White page, black letters and all that.

But I really like it. Much more than I expected to.

Do note that the black letters on a white background may have to do with the limitations of the medium (i.e. a playtest document).

At the same time, I agree: there is a certain old school vibe to it. Some of the prose (even when it occasionally obfuscates the rules, but whatever) feels very old school, which is a welcome change from the textbook nature of 4e for me.

Sovereign Court

I've been struggling to find a way to express myself without being dogpiled on as a Pathfinder fanboi and being told to stop hating, but essentially I really, really don't like it. I expected perhaps, a little bit of innovation, but this feels like 2E with bits of 3E and 4E bolted on and not in a good way. It feels like several steps backwards for me with a disturbing lack of any new, bright ideas. I never quite fell in love with 4E, but I did really appreciate some innovative elements and new ground the dev team for that dared to tread.

The sheer amount of errors and redundant abilities in what appears to be a really simplified version of the game is also extremely worrying, as is the apparent lack of customisation. I'm also really not a fan of DND being pitched as a "Storyteller" system, it feels very much like old WoD and frankly, if I want a storyteller system with loose mechanics and tons of GM adjudication, that's where I go for it.

Suspect my opinions are coloured by my comparatively young age compared to most posters here, but I did go into the playtest with an open mind and hoping to find a system I liked.

Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of old school DND. But nevertheless, I can't see this as an edition to "unite" the player base. If anything, it looks like Wotc are competing for the 2E players and those not enamoured with 3.X and hoping to bring the 4E fan-base along with them.

Silver Crusade

Feels more retro to me. But far less 4E so I'm thrilled so far.

And I have to agree that the prose language feels like OSR stuff! Love that and exactly what I feel DnD needs. Back to basics with a slant to the esoteric.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

I really, really don't like it. I expected perhaps, a little bit of innovation, but this feels like 2E with bits of 3E and 4E bolted on and not in a good way. It feels like several steps backwards for me with a disturbing lack of any new, bright ideas. I never quite fell in love with 4E, but I did really appreciate some innovative elements and new ground the dev team for that dared to tread.

While I do like what I've seen so far (overall, anyway), I think it's important to realize that what is presented in this playtest is the absolute core of the system. It's the part that is going to scream 'this is the bare essentials of a D&D game', and I don't think that part is supposed to feel innovative, no matter how you turn and twist it. Plus, as mentioned in the introduction system, they have intentionally left out certain elements to see how players react to that, and how much we feel various things are missing from a 'core D&D' system.

This is also where the lack of customization comes in, since there's no actual customization included in this playtest. No character creation. No character advancement. Etc.

So, while your concerns may be warranted, I think it's too early to tell.

Also, the only truly redundant ability I've noticed so far, is the Ambusher feat that the rogue character has. What else is there?

Sovereign Court

All fair points Slaunyeh and i'll consider them further. But I will say, 4E had some innovative features built even into its most basic rules- i'm not really seeing that here, at all.

Off the top of my head, the Halfling has a pretty redundant ability to hide behind someone bigger than themselves, which the hide rules already appear to allow... The Dwarven cleric doesn't seem to have shield proficiency but his theme grants him a special usage of his shield (to be fair, its possible that shield proficiency is tied into armour now). I think there were more but i'd have to comb the document again.

Honestly, the biggest stickler for me is DM's arbitrarily being encouraged to ignore the dice as and when they see fit. The example of a character rolling a 1 when they role-played a great speech and how the DM should just ignore the dice roll, doesn't sit well with me. I'm certainly willing to grant a character a bonus for a well thought out or RP'ed speech but this design choice is basically rewarding the person's RL charisma and social competence, which to my mind should be irrelevant to his character's success or failure.

If they designed the system without even including social skills to roll for i'd have less problem with the concept- but as one of the themes gives +3 diplomacy its clear that's not the case.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Off the top of my head, the Halfling has a pretty redundant ability to hide behind someone bigger than themselves, which the hide rules already appear to allow... The Dwarven cleric doesn't seem to have shield proficiency but his theme grants him a special usage of his shield (to be fair, its possible that shield proficiency is tied into armour now). I think there were more but i'd have to comb the document again.

Races seem to be unimpressive to me, at least what I saw up to now but I am glad the high elves are back, instead of eladrin.

Quote:
Honestly, the biggest stickler for me is DM's arbitrarily being encouraged to ignore the dice as and when they see fit.

You known that every sensible RPG tells that dice are a tool for GM not his master?

But I agree with you on a different principle - the GM should not allow the player's skills to allow automatic success when attempting action that his character is weak - for low Charisma, no skill character social interaction should be hard (in the example, for good roleplay I would grant minimum dice result instead of bonus). If a social player that plays socially graceful character makes a rousing speech I might give him automatic success.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:


You known that every sensible RPG tells that dice are a tool for GM not his master?

Yes. So why ask for a dice check to resolve success when the DM is encouraged to then ignore that check if its rolled low? Waste of everyone's play time to roll it.

The Exchange

Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Drejk wrote:


You known that every sensible RPG tells that dice are a tool for GM not his master?

Yes. So why ask for a dice check to resolve success when the DM is encouraged to then ignore that check if its rolled low? Waste of everyone's play time to roll it.

well, because, rolling dice is fun :)

really though, when GMs are incouraged to ignore dice rolls, it always means that they should do so only when it's appropriate - that is, sparsley and at thier own dicretion. For example, if your PCs ran into a random encounter that's not supposed to be important, but they are getting hit really bad, fudgin the monsters' rolls is a good idea.


I don't get the feeling of 3.5 as much as I do with a modern retro clone. I like how it eschews a lot of needless complexity (detect magic effect text is 2 sentences!), but I'm worried that the group, so used to high magic Faerun and PF games, will feel turned away just from the overall feel.

At any rate, our group is pretty solidly PF no matter what. And that's mostly because of so much 3rd/3.5/PF content and support combined with our history of using the ruleset.

Back on topic, aside from a few glaring issues prior to my playtest (medium armor has almost no mechanical benefit), it looks pretty solid.


I agree with several of the other posters here in that this playtest feels to me like something of a Red Box update than a 3.X update.

The Exchange

Swivl wrote:
I don't get the feeling of 3.5 as much as I do with a modern retro clone. I like how it eschews a lot of needless complexity (detect magic effect text is 2 sentences!), but I'm worried that the group, so used to high magic Faerun and PF games, will feel turned away just from the overall feel.

I agree with this: while I agree with the OP in saying that there's a lot of 3.5 in it, at the same time a lot of it is just the shared legacy of D&D, from OD&D to B/X to AD&D all the way to 3e.

The mechanics are very modern and 3e'ish though, but at the same time it doesn't commit the major sin of 3e (which was further propagated by 4e): tying the combat to a grid. This, I feel, is a major factor in giving the game a slightly more old-school feel.

Mechanically, it feels like Castles & Crusades with some minor features from 4e, but even those features of 4e have been smoothly integrated into the pre-4e framework. I'm referring to stuff like Healing Word, which was a Cleric power in 4e, being adopted into the Vancian magic system by simply turning it into a 1st-level Cleric spell.

But yeah, it seems like a nice mix of stuff from various editions, and while some elements are drawn from the two latest editions it feels really old school due to the prose and lack of tactical combat.


zean wrote:
Overall, it looks like WOTC has decided to go more the way of 3.5's design philosophy.

Overall, it looks like "let's agree 4th Edition never happened". And now it's back to actually trying to improve 3rd Edition. I like that.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

I've been struggling to find a way to express myself without being dogpiled on as a Pathfinder fanboi and being told to stop hating, but essentially I really, really don't like it. I expected perhaps, a little bit of innovation, but this feels like 2E with bits of 3E and 4E bolted on and not in a good way. It feels like several steps backwards for me with a disturbing lack of any new, bright ideas. I never quite fell in love with 4E, but I did really appreciate some innovative elements and new ground the dev team for that dared to tread.

The sheer amount of errors and redundant abilities in what appears to be a really simplified version of the game is also extremely worrying, as is the apparent lack of customisation. I'm also really not a fan of DND being pitched as a "Storyteller" system, it feels very much like old WoD and frankly, if I want a storyteller system with loose mechanics and tons of GM adjudication, that's where I go for it.

Suspect my opinions are coloured by my comparatively young age compared to most posters here, but I did go into the playtest with an open mind and hoping to find a system I liked.

Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of old school DND. But nevertheless, I can't see this as an edition to "unite" the player base. If anything, it looks like Wotc are competing for the 2E players and those not enamoured with 3.X and hoping to bring the 4E fan-base along with them.

I'm not sure if I'm being 100% accurate, but I think that old felling D&D had a lot to do with rather lax storytelling in terms of game system. The rules were deeper into detail concerning combat (because of the war-game background of Dave Arneson and Gygax himself) but it was still a lot about telling a story in first person...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blah! Deleted my other posts after I read the wizard's cantrip ability. "At-will" ability!!! This really left such a bad taste in my mouth. Why will the wizard bother with a dagger or staff (unless he is using it as a walking stick) if he can throw magic missiles each round?!
I think I will stay away if more of such rules creep in...

PS: Why can't they rely on something like magical energies or something? Or possibly exchange their health for more magical energies when the level-based energies ran out?

Sovereign Court

I've fully read the entire playtest, thankyou. That sentence does nothing to allay my personal concerns on that particular subject- at least fudging is done behind the DM screen and in the best cases of it, the players need not know its happening.

This is a little too out in the open and simply deciding whether an action is successful based on DM judgement/how well that person RP'd the action regardless of his modifiers or investment into said skill/how charismatic that PLAYER is/did he buy the pizza for the group that night and the DM is feeling generous towards him/is the player the DM's best friend so DM subconsciously seems to let his actions succeed more than the others- simply isn't going to sit well with me. If DM judgement is going to adjudicate social skills, lets do away with the diplomacy, bluff etc. skills entirely and just let role-play decide these things. I would rather have one or the other, not a half-hearted, lazy combination of both... In the system's defence, i'm fairly extreme about about social skills and dice rolls surrounding them, i'm all for diplomacy being used on fellow PC's, within reason, for example.

Yes, those are extreme examples in my /XXX/YYY list but I came to DND with 3.5, having grown sick of storyteller systems such as WoD and Vampire: The Masquerade and essentially being tired of GM's deciding whether I succeeded or failed based on their own prejudices and expectations. I recall essentially trying to show initiative and play my character but being stifled into the GM's "story hour" where anything I did that they didn't seem to like seemed to require an unusually large amount of successes, usually 1 or 2 more than the large amount I had rolled... I think a lot of the newer blood that came to 3.X will feel the same way I do, but that is just a gut feeling based on my own groups of players and peers. I believe this storytelling emphasis over using dice to determine an actions success or failure will definitely be more popular with the grognards- that is the impression i've had thus far on these forums.

But I think, perhaps, this is getting us a little too far from the OT, so I think its best we drop it and get some more fresh perspectives*?.

*Preferably without saying anyone didn't read the material they are speaking about :)

Edit: Jeez mousey, now my * and reply is entirely out of context :P.


mousey wrote:

Blah! Deleted my other posts after I read the wizard's cantrip ability. "At-will" ability!!! This really left such a bad taste in my mouth. Why will the wizard bother with a dagger or staff (unless he is using it as a walking stick) if he can throw magic missiles each round?!

I think I will stay away if more of such rules creep in...

PS: Why can't they rely on something like magical energies or something? Or possibly exchange their health for more magical energies when the level-based energies ran out?

It's early days yet as far as the playtest goes. I'd say attacks of opportunity will make a comeback. Otherwise casters will be really unfair.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Yes. So why ask for a dice check to resolve success when the DM is encouraged to then ignore that check if its rolled low? Waste of everyone's play time to roll it.

Honestly? I just think they are trying to be inclusive of as many playstyles as possible. D&D acknowledging that gaming groups are different... that's a pretty innovative concept, right there. ;)

And for people mentioning the lack of grids: That was probably the biggest relief for me. I loathed how SW:Saga measured everything in squares.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber
Drejk wrote:


Races seem to be unimpressive to me, at least what I saw up to now but I am glad the high elves are back, instead of eladrin.

I haven't looked at the playtest yet but I am glad to hear that the races have perhaps been returned to normal. The thing that drove me from 4e as a buyer of product(I have played occasionally with pregens, etc)is the mauling it gave to races and settings for no apparent reason. Suddenly elves don't live very long and the forgotten realms have been destroyed along with the cosmos itself. The "fluff" changes actually bothered me more than the mechanical ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mousey wrote:

Why will the wizard bother with a dagger or staff (unless he is using it as a walking stick) if he can throw magic missiles each round?!

Well, the idea of a Wizard resorting to a quarterstaff or dagger after casting his handful of spells doesn't appeal much to me - the Wizard is the master of magic, after all. Besides, having a few minor magical attacks like this might help avoid the 15-minute adventuring day, by making it easier for the Wizard to meaningfully contribute to encounters without blowing away all his spells in the first encounter or two.

The Exchange

Marius Johansen wrote:
mousey wrote:

Why will the wizard bother with a dagger or staff (unless he is using it as a walking stick) if he can throw magic missiles each round?!

Well, the idea of a Wizard resorting to a quarterstaff or dagger after casting his handful of spells doesn't appeal much to me - the Wizard is the master of magic, after all. Besides, having a few minor magical attacks like this might help avoid the 15-minute adventuring day, by making it easier for the Wizard to meaningfully contribute to encounters without blowing away all his spells in the first encounter or two.

Agree entirely. I think the Wizard should have access to a number of minor spells and cantrips at will all the time, like in 4e and Pathfinder. However, at the same time I feel that Magic Missile as a cantrip might be a bit too much, because it is an auto-hit.


Ratpick wrote:
Marius Johansen wrote:
mousey wrote:

Why will the wizard bother with a dagger or staff (unless he is using it as a walking stick) if he can throw magic missiles each round?!

Well, the idea of a Wizard resorting to a quarterstaff or dagger after casting his handful of spells doesn't appeal much to me - the Wizard is the master of magic, after all. Besides, having a few minor magical attacks like this might help avoid the 15-minute adventuring day, by making it easier for the Wizard to meaningfully contribute to encounters without blowing away all his spells in the first encounter or two.
Agree entirely. I think the Wizard should have access to a number of minor spells and cantrips at will all the time, like in 4e and Pathfinder. However, at the same time I feel that Magic Missile as a cantrip might be a bit too much, because it is an auto-hit.

I think this is more of a knee-jerk reaction, honestly. The fighter deals good damage as a comparison (2d6+7, 3 on a miss vs. 1d4+1 every time). Plus the scaling of it at higher levels looks to be comparably weak to make actually hitting with a powerful spell worth the risk.

I know that makes the wizard less reliant on mundane weapons, but he's a friggin' wizard, he's not proficient anyway.

Star Voter 2013

I for one am perfectly okay with the wizard having some all day magic. Nothing game breaking mind you but the cantrips so far seem fine to me as the kinda thing i expect from a wizard.


Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Personally, I think this release is too bare bones to base any kind of decision on the systems relative merits. That said their are some things I do like about it, and some things I don't. I'm going to wait on some more info, before going either way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a personal opinion of mine, but I think that at-will magic doesn't have a place in a vancian magic system; make it vancian or don't, but the in-between annoys me (that's also true for Pathfinder).

Vancian magic is quantified and limited. For me, having puny attack spells that deal the equivalent of a quarterstaff or a crossbow bolt doesn't help in making the character feel more magical. On the contrary, it takes away from magic as far as I'm concerned.

I'm aware that this reasoning isn't very popular and I'm ready to wait for the finished product to make a final opinion. Surprise me WotC!

Scarab Sages

The following is interesting to me (because I'm all pumped for the PF race guide in mind). In D&D Next, it is proposed by the playtest rules that:

Dwarves are *immune* to poison!

Elves are *immune* to charm and sleep; more specifically charm as *a condition* and sleep as *an effect*.

Halflings are lucky twice a day where, and we've seen this kind of idea before in various game rules, the player can choose the best of 2 die rolls.

They each have other benefits, but the above ones stood out to me.

While I haven't read everything yet, my eyes balls went straight to the races to see what WotC's considering. I like the idea of low power immunities. I've always felt the skill modifiers and other racial benefits in 3.0/3.5/PF were weak bits and pieces; a definitive thing like an outright immunity to poison has some good flavour and "umph" to it.

On another note, to regain a familiar, after losing it, in D&D Next requires a "minor ritual" of about half an hour... I have no idea if that is fluff or a hint of ritual magic rules. (In PF it requires 200gp and an 8 hour ritual after waiting a week.)

That's some my preliminary observations -- I kind of like what they are doing, but need. more. info!

Star Voter 2013

Well as far as ritual rules they talk about rituals in the magic section of the playtest so look there for a little more info.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I also think a return to racial immunities is a good thing. It always seemed to me that the shift to quantified bonuses was motivated by balance considerations. Although it didnt used to really matter, I think the concept of balance and optimised 'builds' is pretty ingrained in the gaming culture now. It will be interesting to see whether the optimisers come to a consensus that some of the races are flat out automatic choices (or choices to be automatically avoided).

For my part, I prefer a more qualitative attempt at balance, even if some races end up weaker or stronger than others.

Scarab Sages

Talonhawke wrote:
Well as far as ritual rules they talk about rituals in the magic section of the playtest so look there for a little more info.

Good point. I had a look: it seems that rituals are spells cast without preparation but requiring more expensive materials (not always?) and longer casting time. Interesting way to handle it so far. I wonder if that will open the door to non-casters, and even intelligent commoners, to occasionally cast magic -- and of course risking disasters that require heroic interventions!! :-D

Weren't there ritual rules in 3.0/3.5 somewhere? Scared Lands? WotC's Unearthed Arcana?

Star Voter 2013

Yep in Unearthed Arcana. And you do make a good point it makes one wonder who can perform rituals.


That's where the idea showed up. They never did anything with it.


Ezrenaeus wrote:
On another note, to regain a familiar, after losing it, in D&D Next requires a "minor ritual" of about half an hour... I have no idea if that is fluff or a hint of ritual magic rules. (In PF it requires 200gp and an 8 hour ritual after waiting a week.)

The other thing about familiars is that they are explicitly summoned creatures. You can summon or dismiss them with an action. The minor ritual doesn't replace the familiar after losing it as it does in PF, but resummons the original.

This will lead to even riskier use of familiars, since there is no long-term risk.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Drejk wrote:


You known that every sensible RPG tells that dice are a tool for GM not his master?

Yes. So why ask for a dice check to resolve success when the DM is encouraged to then ignore that check if its rolled low? Waste of everyone's play time to roll it.

I'm not necessarily sure whether the intent of that example was to suggest that if a player rolls something you don't like, that you should just ignore it. Rather, I think it was giving an example where the outcome of a roll did not match the intensity of the RP, and saying, "Here is a scene where you could have simply skipped that roll and resolved it according to the RP."

Honestly, though, this isn't a suggestion new to 5E. I've seen the same thing in pretty much every edition of the game. And I've seen some groups that are fans of that approach, while others hate it. Each group tends to find its own balance as far as player skill vs character skill, and I don't think the rules here are changing that - just pointing out the different options that a DM has.


Everyone might want to take a look at Myth & Magic from New Haven Games. I think you can still download their Player Starter Guide and Gamemaster Starter Guide from www.newhavengames.com

A good chunk of what I've seen written about DnD Next, the ladies and gentlemen of NHG have been developing for the last 3 years. The full release of Myth & Magic will be around GENCON and they've already had a successful Kickstarter campaign.

I do't see DnD Next as being 3.5E as I see it being Myth & Magic. Also, saying DnD Next is like 3.5E is like saying that Pathfinder is 3.75E with a new shiny cover. Not trying to incite or offend, just pointing out an observation.

Contributor

thejeff wrote:
Ezrenaeus wrote:
On another note, to regain a familiar, after losing it, in D&D Next requires a "minor ritual" of about half an hour... I have no idea if that is fluff or a hint of ritual magic rules. (In PF it requires 200gp and an 8 hour ritual after waiting a week.)

The other thing about familiars is that they are explicitly summoned creatures. You can summon or dismiss them with an action. The minor ritual doesn't replace the familiar after losing it as it does in PF, but resummons the original.

This will lead to even riskier use of familiars, since there is no long-term risk.

That's what I thought too. Now, instead of the wizard's cat being something to be protected, it's instead the go-to choice for suicide missions.

This is basically an awkward patch. Having it be summoned like a pokemon is likewise dull.

The other thing I looked at was the stats for the medusa. They're listed as LE, but have an unreasoning hatred for all other life, which sounds rather CE in my book. They also might wander around talking madly to their statues, which sounds more insane than actually evil. And then, instead of any folklore, there's ass-pull "mythology" about them maybe being descended from some woman who the gods cursed for vanity or maybe there's some other origin myth, just make sure you make them all cardboard evil, m'kay?

It's everything I hated about the 4e MM and more. Meh.

The Exchange

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

The other thing I looked at was the stats for the medusa. They're listed as LE, but have an unreasoning hatred for all other life, which sounds rather CE in my book. They also might wander around talking madly to their statues, which sounds more insane than actually evil. And then, instead of any folklore, there's ass-pull "mythology" about them maybe being descended from some woman who the gods cursed for vanity or maybe there's some other origin myth, just make sure you make them all cardboard evil, m'kay?

It's everything I hated about the 4e MM and more. Meh.

Medusas have been Lawful Evil at least since 3e, if not for longer. It's a hold-over from earlier editions.

Also, I don't really see what's so 4e about the bestiary. I also like the fact that the myth about medusas isn't necessarily the true one, and the bit about a dead medusa's gaze still being able to petrify someone (after which the medusa's snake-hairs slither away!) is simply inspired.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
thejeff wrote:


The other thing about familiars is that they are explicitly summoned creatures. You can summon or dismiss them with an action. The minor ritual doesn't replace the familiar after losing it as it does in PF, but resummons the original.

This will lead to even riskier use of familiars, since there is no long-term risk.

That's what I thought too. Now, instead of the wizard's cat being something to be protected, it's instead the go-to choice for suicide missions.

This is basically an awkward patch. Having it be summoned like a pokemon is likewise dull.

One of the early Order of the Stick strips.

Now this is actually how it works.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
thejeff wrote:


The other thing about familiars is that they are explicitly summoned creatures. You can summon or dismiss them with an action. The minor ritual doesn't replace the familiar after losing it as it does in PF, but resummons the original.

This will lead to even riskier use of familiars, since there is no long-term risk.

That's what I thought too. Now, instead of the wizard's cat being something to be protected, it's instead the go-to choice for suicide missions.

This is basically an awkward patch. Having it be summoned like a pokemon is likewise dull.

One of the early Order of the Stick strips.

Now this is actually how it works.

Oh my.

D&D Next is Order of the Stick: The Game?!

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / DND Next Similar to 3.5 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

©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.