Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?


4th Edition

951 to 1,000 of 1,528 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

Charlie D. wrote:
The question is, if you have a skill and want to practice it should you prevented from doing so because a group of other people don't like what you say?

Yes, even sometimes with urgency. Politics is a great example. If you have a doctor that publicly refuses to read publications and studies on new treatments, it could be reasonably argued he's introducing risk to his practice and his insurance might actually drop him preventing him from practice. For RPGs, though, I would think the same applies. If you have someone who is publicly divisive in his speech and you're trying to build a product to really be big then don't hire them. Or, at the very least, don't hire them in any public capacity. PR is real and has very good uses. Remember the Microsoft guy who said 'deal with it' with the Xbox One mess? He no longer works for Microsoft.

Liberty's Edge

As to who or who should not be writing RPGs let me put it this way.

A writer RPG Pundit does not like writes an RPG. RPG Pundit says he does not like the writer and the writer should be banned from writing RPGs.

RPG Pundit works on D&D 5E. Some gamers say they do not like him. He should be banned from writing RPGs.

I don't really see a lot of difference here. I really don't agree with either side. If I disagree with a writer I won't buy his or her stuff. I don't need to crusade to stop others from doing so if they are so inclined or if I do I will at least present my argument as an opinion piece.

Liberty's Edge

Buri wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
The question is, if you have a skill and want to practice it should you prevented from doing so because a group of other people don't like what you say?
Yes, even sometimes with urgency. Politics is a great example. If you have a doctor that publicly refuses to read publications and studies on new treatments, it could be reasonably argued he's introducing risk to his practice and his insurance might actually drop him preventing him from practice. For RPGs, though, I would think the same applies. If you have someone who is publicly divisive in his speech and you're trying to build a product to really be big then don't hire them. Or, at the very least, don't hire them in any public capacity. PR is real and has very good uses. Remember the Microsoft guy who said 'deal with it' with the Xbox One mess? He no longer works for Microsoft.

You doctor example doesn't match the context of my post. A doctor being unskilled has nothing to do with what he says.

As to RPGs, on this point RPG Pundit would disagree with you. He sees this campaign against him as PR (it helps sell what he writes and it sells books for companies he works for).

I do know that being unable to speak my mind or my side of things can be frustrating. And being prevented from being who you are in public is very much a part of modern life.

By stopping discussion on some type of open forum where everyone can respond honestly and will be called to defend what they say I think we risk a lot as demonstrated in this example.


Charlie D. wrote:
thejeff wrote:

More importantly, you completely ignore the crazy pointed out in the article. The conspiracy of Swine trying to destroy RPGs (by making RPGs that aren't sufficiently old school apparently) and then "social justice" as also a conspiracy to ruin RPGs.

Or the alleged harassment. Or any of the actual real problems pointed out.

Honestly, I agree with your nitpick about grognards. That's not the meaning I'm familiar with. But that's almost completely irrelevant to the larger point of the article in the link.

RPG Pundit has loud opinions and rants. I'm not arguing about that. I have yet to read something by him in which he says social justice is trying to ruin RPGs as you posted however.

His opponents, however, also rant and have loud opinions. That is my point. Those of us in the middle have to get along with everybody and that includes both sides.

I visit both sites that represent the extreme polar opposites of belief that goes way beyond gaming. Both sides feel very strongly about their opinion and will tell you why you are wrong if you don't share their opinion. One side uses banning and locking down discussion. The other side drops the f bomb and rants back and forth.

While the second option can come across as harassment, I have seen people challenge RPG Pundit on his own site and not get banned. You can't do that on many RPG forums, push back against the owner and the owner will take it (RPG Pundit will respond and push back but you don't get banned).

Now, should Wizards be able to hire him? Well, the gamers will vote with their wallets. The question is, if you have a skill and want to practice it should you prevented from doing so because a group of other people don't like what you say? Both sides of this issue seem to want to stop the other side from making RPGs and RPG related discussion. In my opinion the only way to settle it is to let both sides hash it out while staying within the law.

If you haven't seen anything about the "social justice" aspect, then point that out and defend it. It was kind of the focus of the article. Because if this isn't true, it's a far bigger smear on RPGPundit, than the bits you picked on:
Quote:
It’s easy to dismiss this as harmless crankery, but conservative art often comes with conservative politics, thus it came as no surprise when Pundit’s Glenn Beck style rants switched targets from ‘storygame swine’ to attacking “Psuedo-activism swinery”. Again, this is not an exaggeration, one of the consultants on D&D literally believes that ‘social justice’ is a conspiracy by outsiders to ruin ‘real RPGs’ forever. Here he is comparing an expo instituting an anti-harassment policy harsh Islamic modesty laws, managing to insult both women and Muslims in one article.

The article wasn't about loud opinions and rants or even about "f bombs".

And obviously WotC should be able to hire him. And obviously, as you say gamers will vote with their wallets and maybe even point out to others something problematic about certain hiring choices. None of which is outside the law, so I don't quite see what your problem is. Neither should be prevented from practicing their skill, but if their customers don't like the way they do it then they may not be able to make money practicing that skill.

Liberty's Edge

"It’s easy to dismiss this as harmless crankery, but conservative art often comes with conservative politics, thus it came as no surprise when Pundit’s Glenn Beck style rants switched targets from ‘storygame swine’ to attacking “Psuedo-activism swinery”. Again, this is not an exaggeration, one of the consultants on D&D literally believes that ‘social justice’ is a conspiracy by outsiders to ruin ‘real RPGs’ forever. Here he is comparing an expo instituting an anti-harassment policy harsh Islamic modesty laws, managing to insult both women and Muslims in one article."

RPG Pundit's response and a quote from him:

So in rebuttal, I present to you a little OSR game I wrote called Arrows of Indra. No white guys in it at all. But what it DOES explicitly have is transgendered people in it (there's even one on the cover!).


Charlie D. wrote:
You doctor example doesn't match the context of my post. A doctor being unskilled has nothing to do with what he says.

I didn't say the doctor was unskilled. I simply described him as obstinate to adopt new treatments and being voiceferous about it. It's valid.

Charlie D. wrote:

As to RPGs, on this point RPG Pundit would disagree with you. He sees this campaign against him as PR (it helps sell what he writes and it sells books for companies he works for).

I do know that being unable to speak my mind or my side of things can be frustrating. And being prevented from being who you are in public is very much a part of modern life.

By stopping discussion on some type of open forum where everyone can respond honestly and will be called to defend what they say I think we risk a lot as demonstrated in this example.

I guess you could say in those cases I do vote with my wallet. People who are overly pushy with their ideals in a way that could impact decisions around a product negatively in my view don't get me money if I'm aware of them. That's really about all you can do to impact such things.

Liberty's Edge

Buri wrote:
I guess you could say in those cases I do vote with my wallet. People who are overly pushy with their ideals in a way that could impact decisions around a product negatively in my view don't get me money if I'm aware of them. That's really about all you can do to impact such things.

And that is a good thing. I just want the facts to come out.

RPG Pundit wrote an RPG with transgender people in it and non-white people (Arrows of Indra). He wrote an article arguing for women being equal in RPGs (unless the author specifically states they are trying to recreate historical accuracy). These are facts that should be considered before you vote.


Kevin Mack wrote:

Nope not touching the thing less to do with the rules and more to do with certain individuas involved with the project

Link

I admit to a bit of head scratching when I saw they were using RPGPundit as a consultant. My experiences with him pretty much always suggested he would be toxic to work with. That said, none of my experiences with him would put me off buying a work in which he plays a consultative role. He just never rose to that level of contempt from me.

There is, however, one designer I do avoid based on some race-baiting I witnessed from him. He is not working on 5e, though, at least not as far as I know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

Hell to the yes!

I'll still be picking up adventure paths from Paizo now and then, but system-wise I'm finally putting 3E/Pathfinder away for good and I won't be missing it.

That is all well and good, but what do your other heads say?

Green likes Call of Cthulhu

Violet likes FATAL
Grey likes World of Darkness
Blue is addicted to EVE online, and doesn't play table top games


R_Chance wrote:
Undecided. I'll collect both, unsure if I'll switch to DDN. But my game isn't strictly PF, more like 3.X. A combo of 3.5, PF and house rules. I plan on picking up the final DDN rules on release. Regardless, I'll collect both. I like my reading material :)

first of all isnt it DnD not DDN?


Naraku666 wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Undecided. I'll collect both, unsure if I'll switch to DDN. But my game isn't strictly PF, more like 3.X. A combo of 3.5, PF and house rules. I plan on picking up the final DDN rules on release. Regardless, I'll collect both. I like my reading material :)
first of all isnt it DnD not DDN?

D & D Next

Sovereign Court

Its 5E

Shadow Lodge

They seem to have (thankfully) dropped the D&D Next moniker with the actual.release.


Naraku666 wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Undecided. I'll collect both, unsure if I'll switch to DDN. But my game isn't strictly PF, more like 3.X. A combo of 3.5, PF and house rules. I plan on picking up the final DDN rules on release. Regardless, I'll collect both. I like my reading material :)

first of all isnt it DnD not DDN?

Well, that post was a while back... WotC referred to it as DDN throughout the playtest, as others have indicated now that it's out it's D&D. It is referred to variously as DDN, D&D and 5E from what I've seen in various places. D&D and 5E seems to be winning out over DDN. I'm neutral on the name issue :)

Still undecided on 3.X / 5E btw. I have the PHB and it's a good read. Next up the MM. I suspect the key book for me will be the DMG.

*edit* I've played since 1974. I still find myself referring to Pathfinder as "D&D" and generally refer to what I play now as "3.X" given the mix of 3.5, homebrew and Pathfinder elements... old habits die hard :)


Picked up the Players Guide. Bit disappointed with backgrounds. Gameplay seems good. I will be playing in a 5E pbp so I can test gameplay soon enough.

Shadow Lodge

My home brew campaign will stay Pathfinder, however, I am running a 5E game and playing in a 5E game. So far I have had a lot of fun in the 5E games.

Shadow Lodge

Dennis Harry wrote:
Picked up the Players Guide. Bit disappointed with backgrounds. Gameplay seems good. I will be playing in a 5E pbp so I can test gameplay soon enough.

They are completely optional though. I didn't use their backgrounds for my character.


Well I like the look of the PHB.
Really good all the PF/4th OTT cartoony art has gone

reserve all other judgements until actually do something gaming with it!!


Asphere wrote:
Dennis Harry wrote:
Picked up the Players Guide. Bit disappointed with backgrounds. Gameplay seems good. I will be playing in a 5E pbp so I can test gameplay soon enough.
They are completely optional though. I didn't use their backgrounds for my character.

I was hoping for more background options with a bit more substance to them. The first playtest i was part of i thought did a better job with them. I like them for 5e but I dont see them being useful for an add on to my 3.5 games. Perhaps when I get the DMG there will be expanded backgrounds included.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with giving background a lot of substance in a setting-neutral book is that the more substance you give them, the more likely they are to not fit well with any given setting.


Kthulhu wrote:
The problem with giving background a lot of substance in a setting-neutral book is that the more substance you give them, the more likely they are to not fit well with any given setting.

You are taking a very reasonable position to be sure Kthulhu. I will need to look back at the playtest material and compare it to the backgrounds as presented in the new PHB to explain exactly what I mean by "lack of substance". It may just be my perception as I have not looked at the playtest material in 2+ years. I will present an example later on today to explain what I mean :-)


Keep in mind when you look that many of the backgrounds got rolled up into variants on the others.


Kevin Mack wrote:

Nope not touching the thing less to do with the rules and more to do with certain individuas involved with the project

Link

Wasn't their sole contribution that they playtested the system and consulted with the designers regarding game mechanics? If that's the case, what's the problem? They're not writing for the campaign settings or anything... as far as I know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Detect Magic wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

Nope not touching the thing less to do with the rules and more to do with certain individuas involved with the project

Link

Wasn't their sole contribution that they playtested the system and consulted with the designers regarding game mechanics? If that's the case, what's the problem? They're not writing for the campaign settings or anything... as far as I know.

For some people it doesn't matter the degree of their involvement, but rather that they were involved and when confronted with those individuals history, the people in charge of D&D reaffirmed their commitment to those individuals.

You can disagree with Kevin Mack's choice. His choice is his choice, just like your choice is yours.


That goes without saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Once I wrap up the current pathfinder campaigns I have on the go I'll probably switch to D&D Next. I really want to play a D&D system without magic item dependency and stat bloat.

OMFG...+3(max) it's about time we got numbers for characters that don't look like SSN.


Buri wrote:
Keep in mind when you look that many of the backgrounds got rolled up into variants on the others.

I guess I am just not seeing a lot of the similarities from the initial Playtest to the finished product.

I get your point though, they were looking to streamline not create a plethora of options which is one of the main complaints about 3.5.

Once I get the DMG I guess I will see if they have more background options. If not, I may just find some way to incorporate the early Playtest material into the Background/Kit system I have houseruled for my games.

The 5E PBP I am playing in just started tonight so I am pretty excited to see how 5E functions as we move along in the campaign.


Phb says you can work with your DM to either tweak existing backgrounds or create your own.


Conundrum wrote:
Phb says you can work with your DM to either tweak existing backgrounds or create your own.

I have a fairly elaborate background system for my homebrew FR campaign. I am really looking to 5E as a DM for ideas I can use out of the box or tweak slightly. So far I dont think I have gotten that from the PHB.


Conundrum wrote:
Phb says you can work with your DM to either tweak existing backgrounds or create your own.

Which, while I don't know anything about the backgrounds to speak of, pleases me greatly.

I would be a bit annoyed if there were a limited number of backgrounds for a character... our kingmaker game is turning out awesome, but almost EVERY background trait involved you being a part of the noble family... I like a LITTLE more variety in character backgrounds ;)


phantom1592 wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Phb says you can work with your DM to either tweak existing backgrounds or create your own.

Which, while I don't know anything about the backgrounds to speak of, pleases me greatly.

I would be a bit annoyed if there were a limited number of backgrounds for a character... our kingmaker game is turning out awesome, but almost EVERY background trait involved you being a part of the noble family... I like a LITTLE more variety in character backgrounds ;)

For purposes of 5E I think what they have released so far works well. Even if a group consisted of 5 fighters if each fighter took a different background, each would add unique expertise to the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

Which is a major call back to 2E.

I'm torn on the idea really, at the time, I loved all the kits and stuff to help me avoid the 'cookie cutter fighter'... All the stats looked the same...

Still, Pathfinder/3.5 went too far the other way, bogging you down with a hundred different choices and too many that simply didn't work together... I'm not really sure which is 'better.'

I do know that when the only thing that differentiated one fighter from the next was personality and backstory... I stayed incharacter a lot more. Now days I seem too involved in the math to remember to use an accent half the time.

The Exchange

Most of my game group has the new starter box and PHB now. We have weekly Pathfinder games scheduled. We have no 5e games scheduled. Not sure if that will change, but aside from us long time gamers buying in for interest's sake, I don't think we plan on switching over regularly.

I like the simpler rules, might be good for newer RPG players, but it doesn't appeal to me more than the Pathfinder system over all.


Well, how you present yourself to a group is almost entirely in the purview of roleplay. In that regard, it's really infinite no matter the system.


I think the crux of the "character build limitations" is around whether you feel that you want mechanical choices to vary your character or whether you want Roleplaying choices to define your character. Due to this I don't think that there is a one size fits all, but I am glad that both PF and 5e exists.

To the topic, I have halted my PF games and I am now running two 5e games. One set on Golarion and one set in the Realms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To say that I have switched, is perhaps a little disingenuous. I had stopped playing pathfinder with any kind of serious regularity about two years ago, and while I do play in one 3.5 game, I do so to play with friends, not because I enjoy the system.

On the other hand I am now actively preping to run a 5e campaign. It runs like a well oiled machine, and feels more lke the DnD I feel in love with when I was 9 or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll still play pathfinder but I'm done running it. Alan nailed it. The first time I made a 5e character it felt like I was making that. A character. Not a build trying to optimize a mechanic but a real character. Now stormwind fallacy blah blah blah sure enough but what about the times when you're playing with new players who are your friends? New players require much more rigid bearings to bridge the link between sheet and fictional character. it's super hard to get them excited for playing a fantasy rpg with more convoluted rules than the US tax code. I even have to use a turbo tax software just so character generation doesn't take hours.

I think that's super important. When was the last time a new person joined your game? I mean brand new to dnd. What did their face look like when you showed them all those feats? When you said OK pick one! Oh and it's super important to pick the right one...

5e has been much much easier for players to get the concept of their characters personality and mechanics. That's why I'm using it. Less rules talk and more play.


Olondir wrote:
New players require much more rigid bearings to bridge the link between sheet and fictional character. it's super hard to get them excited for playing a fantasy rpg with more convoluted rules than the US tax code. I even have to use a turbo tax software just so character generation doesn't take hours.

I will disagree here, the US Tax Code is more complex :-) I should know, I am a tax attorney.

Still I do see your point. New players do need to sometimes run through a character once or maybe even twice to "get" an understanding of the complex 3.5/Pathfinder system. However, utilizing just the Players Guide and no other options for 3.5 makes this less of a difficult exercise.


phantom1592 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

Which is a major call back to 2E.

I'm torn on the idea really, at the time, I loved all the kits and stuff to help me avoid the 'cookie cutter fighter'... All the stats looked the same...

Still, Pathfinder/3.5 went too far the other way, bogging you down with a hundred different choices and too many that simply didn't work together... I'm not really sure which is 'better.'

I do know that when the only thing that differentiated one fighter from the next was personality and backstory... I stayed incharacter a lot more. Now days I seem too involved in the math to remember to use an accent half the time.

I agree, it's hitting that right balance.

It's one of the things I like about 13th Age. The Barbarian is still the simplest class, but the way classes are designed there is still a choice that I get to make every level to help shape the character.

In 13th Age you get a feat every level (they also compressed the classes to just 10 levels). There are a few general feats, but the vast majority are class specific and basically augment the abilities you already have. Feats are basically a way for you to specialize in one of the things your class does.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

Which is a major call back to 2E.

I'm torn on the idea really, at the time, I loved all the kits and stuff to help me avoid the 'cookie cutter fighter'... All the stats looked the same...

Still, Pathfinder/3.5 went too far the other way, bogging you down with a hundred different choices and too many that simply didn't work together... I'm not really sure which is 'better.'

I do know that when the only thing that differentiated one fighter from the next was personality and backstory... I stayed incharacter a lot more. Now days I seem too involved in the math to remember to use an accent half the time.

I agree, it's hitting that right balance.

It's one of the things I like about 13th Age. The Barbarian is still the simplest class, but the way classes are designed there is still a choice that I get to make every level to help shape the character.

In 13th Age you get a feat every level (they also compressed the classes to just 10 levels). There are a few general feats, but the vast majority are class specific and basically augment the abilities you already have. Feats are basically a way for you to specialize in one of the things your class does.

I could be wrong about this but I am guessing for the core product some classes are going to have very few choices. However, as 5E gets some legs the classes will open up a bit with more subclass options. Maybe.


Irontruth wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I agree, it's hitting that right balance.

It's one of the things I like about 13th Age. The Barbarian is still the simplest class, but the way classes are designed there is still a choice that I get to make every level to help shape the character.

In 13th Age you get a feat every level (they also compressed the classes to just 10 levels). There are a few general feats, but the vast majority are class specific and basically augment the abilities you already have. Feats are basically a way for you to specialize in one of the things your class does.

I think that was what 5E was going for with hard stat-caps and the "feats or stat increase" scheme. It works a little, and it will work better when more feats get rolled out, especially if there are some class-specific feats. As it stands, however, choices are still probably overly restricted in some classes.


Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

This is my one big worry with 5E - that the number of choices you make with some character builds is very small compared to past editions. Now, I don't think that the second part of your statement follows (about making 3 barbarians and them all being very similar to each other.) When you do make choices, those choices are pretty big - and a Half-orc Berserker Barbarian who is a Great Weapon Master is going to be very different in play from an Elven Wolf Totem Barbarian with the Inspiring Leader feat.

But I do still worry about some of those builds and how few choices you may be making. Your berserker barbarian gets to make big choices when getting the chance for Ability Score bonuses / feats - but you are ending up with half as many feats as you might see in 3rd edition. Now, I think those feats and choices have a definite impact and support a wide range of builds - especially since there is also multiclassing still on the table. But there is still many fewer decisions to make, especially if going with the more obvious feat and stat bump options.

That said, this applies to some builds more than others - and having several very straightforward builds is something many playtesters asked for. So having a mix of both types can be a good thing. And I think they've set themselves up well for adding more character paths and feats that will expand the options available over the life of the edition.

Having just gotten the PHB and read through all the builds and options, I'm feeling reasonably optimistic about it all. I do really like how much impact there is in the choices you make. Choosing a Domain for a cleric isn't just making some slight adjustments to a spell list - it completely defines how the character plays. That's huge in my book, and really shows me what the system is capable of, allowing a wide range of new builds and paths within each class, without the need to instead keep expanding with more and more new classes themselves.


Pan wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

Which is a major call back to 2E.

I'm torn on the idea really, at the time, I loved all the kits and stuff to help me avoid the 'cookie cutter fighter'... All the stats looked the same...

Still, Pathfinder/3.5 went too far the other way, bogging you down with a hundred different choices and too many that simply didn't work together... I'm not really sure which is 'better.'

I do know that when the only thing that differentiated one fighter from the next was personality and backstory... I stayed incharacter a lot more. Now days I seem too involved in the math to remember to use an accent half the time.

I agree, it's hitting that right balance.

It's one of the things I like about 13th Age. The Barbarian is still the simplest class, but the way classes are designed there is still a choice that I get to make every level to help shape the character.

In 13th Age you get a feat every level (they also compressed the classes to just 10 levels). There are a few general feats, but the vast majority are class specific and basically augment the abilities you already have. Feats are basically a way for you to specialize in one of the things your class does.

I could be wrong about this but I am guessing for the core product some classes are going to have very few choices. However, as 5E gets some legs the classes will open up a bit with more subclass...

I suspect that will happen too, but I'm not really interested in that model of buying books any more. If it's stuff that's available free on the web, it won't bother me, but really I want the core book to be the game I want to play, not a potential for a game that could be interesting with future products.

I do like the base rules and how things operate. My knock right now is the structure of classes. I don't necessarily need a plethora of options, but rather just the opportunity to make choices.

Character creation is good IMO. I'm very happy with it so far. Just looking down the road, I wish I had more control.


Irontruth wrote:

I do like the base rules and how things operate. My knock right now is the structure of classes. I don't necessarily need a plethora of options, but rather just the opportunity to make choices.

Character creation is good IMO. I'm very happy with it so far. Just looking down the road, I wish I had more control.

I am curious whether we will see, in addition to new sub-class options themselves, also new additional choices / alternative class features, on a smaller scale.

For example, the Totem Barbarian gets to choose an animal spirit bonus at levels 3, 6 and 14. When they do so, they can choose from the Bear, Eagle, and Wolf totems. I could easily see a future book adding more animal totem options to that list.

Or even with the Berserker Barbarian, who doesn't have any options to make - could they at some point add those in? At level 6, the Berserker gets immunity to Charm and Fear while raging. Might they introduce future options that the Berserker could take instead? Perhaps he can choose between Mindless Rage (immunity to Charm/Fear), Unstoppable Rage (bonuses vs prone / grapple / forced movement), Instinctual Rage (blindsense or bonuses vs invisible enemies, blindness/deafness, etc)?

I mean, I think to some extent the Berserker Barbarian (like the Champion Fighter) are intentionally lacking in choices and decision making. But I think options could be presented within even those, if one wanted to do so, much the way alternative class features were presented in 3.5.

I think adding new options via the subclass approach is more likely, myself. But at the same time, more totem animal options for the barbarian or more Hunter options for the ranger, both seem well within the realm of possibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something that needs to be remembered is that, in exchange for fewer choices during character creation, 5e give you many more choices during play. In combat, for example:

Should I stand still and hit this thing or try and move to a better position? This is an actual decision now.

Should we try and capture one of these guys for questioning? In 5e I don't have to shoot myself in the foot to knock somebody out.

Can I do something else besides swing my sword or cast a spell this round? Opening/closing doors, pulling levers, knocking over chairs, etc. now don't require using an action. Trying to push somebody back or knock them prone doesn't provoke an AoO, it just takes up one of your attacks. So if you're a martial character of level 4+ you can knock your opponent prone and then attack them before they have a chance to get up.

OTOH, standing up from prone also doesn't provoke an AoO; it just takes movement.

Prepared casters also have more choices now because they no longer forget spells once they're cast. A cleric, for example, can prepare a single Cure Wounds and then cast it as many times (and at any level) as they have slots. Some spells also have variable effects that take the place of many different spells in PF. (Enhance Ability, for example, takes the place of 12 different PF spells.) Fewer choices when learning or preparing spells, but more choices when casting them.


Irontruth wrote:


I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

You get to choose how to spend you attributes at 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.

If your using backgrounds and inspiration; how you play your character is a mechanically significant feature.

If your using feats, those attribute increase slots suddenly individualise your character even more.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

You get to choose how to spend you attributes at 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.

If your using backgrounds and inspiration; how you play your character is a mechanically significant feature.

If your using feats, those attribute increase slots suddenly individualise your character even more.

You can disagree with me if you want. You're welcome to your opinion.

My opinion, is that I do not find the limited choices available to be satisfying. You can tell me why YOU don't find that to be true, but I have read the game and am playing it currently. My opinion on the game is also valid and is true to my own experience with it.

I like character creation. I like how the rules create interactions between the players and the game world. My one complaint is that character development is lacking. I'm fully aware of what you've outlined and I still feel this way.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder gives you more choices. Like: do you want to full-attack OR move?

5e doesn't give you that choice. You can both full-attack AND move.

Pathfinder gives you the choice.to.take a feat to apply DEX to damage for finesse weapons.

5e doesn't let you choose to take a feat like that. If you want to wield a rapier like it's meant to be wielded, you just do it.

951 to 1,000 of 1,528 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.