Lessons for 2nd Edition: 5th Edition D&D and Pathfinder's Complexity


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So I bought the 5e player's handbook for D&D on friday and I think it is really well designed. I just don't really like it. This has to do with the complexity of the game.

I may write more parts later.

Part 1: Pros of 5th Editions Simplicity and Where it Annoys Me
Compared to 3rd edition, 4th edition, and Pathfinder, there are far fewer choices for players in 5e. Feats are an "optional rule" (which I hate) and you choose between improving your attributes or getting the feat; I recognize some cleverness here. For the most part, taking the feat at lower class levels is for chumps (accuracy and damage all key off the same stat for almost every class), so players without much gaming savvy are going to be making a lot of the best choices just through their inclination to make the simplest choice. Moreover, these feats come very rarely (most classes have just 4 feats over all 20 levels. Even though the feats themselves offset this by having more punch in each one (each single feat is more like what a short feat chain would grant in pathfinder), an even mildly optimal build is only going to have one or two feats at all. The mind reels with the lack of possibilities!

Without feats, player choice must come in the form of race, background, and class. I will admit that a lot of characters' level 1 choices are made with race and background. Some racial abilities are kinda neat and each background has a neat little ability. However, there are not enough backgrounds (many of my favorite backgrounds such as trader, politician,and lawman are notably absent) and races are about what one might expect. Race has about as much mechanical weight as 2 feats taken in a bundle and backgrounds are a delivery mechanism for additional skills plus one RPing mechanic. I like that the background gives RP mechanics, but I dislike how the only RP mechanic in the game is given at first level. If I had my druthers, I would want a game where your background or profession could progress along with your class in some way (perhaps through just structured roleplaying) that could unlock new social advantages.

In the war of combat archetypes some things are done right:
Dex builds are better at range but worse at melee while strength builds are the opposite. I will note that strength builds have a ranged option at all in the form of thrown weapons keying of of strength for both accuracy and damage.
Between sword and board, dual wielding, and great weapons, the one handed sword does the least damage, dual wielding does "middle" damage (and is the most viable damage option for melee dex builds), and great weapons do the most damage. Dual wielding does jump ahead of great weapons for some low-level ranges and can overtake great weapons for even broader ranges if you take the associated feat. Conversely, sword and board will have the highest defense while the TWF feat will grant the second highest defense and great weapon fighters will have the lowest defense.

I think Pathfinder should strive for this model in the futures. These build balances feel right to me. Every build has its advantages and disadvantages and have various places at the gaming table. In 5e, this goal is achieved almost seamlessly in the way one-handed and light weapon damage is balanced against two handed weapon damage and the way strength-based thrown weapons balance against dex-based bows and crossbows. Actually, there are a lot of little tweaks and interactions that I am leaving out (like how crossbows can become the "optimal" ranged damage build with a feat, but still are balanced against bows since bows have a slightly greater range).

It is almost immaculate but also kind of boring in its execution. If I make a good two-handed-fighter in 5e, I feel like I have done nothing at all. Comparing 5e to pathfinder, I miss having a guiding hand in my character's effectiveness. That is not to say that there are no "bad" builds in 5e (you can still have a barbarian put his highest stats into intelligence and charisma), but a short list of guidelines will always lead to the same short list of "good" 5e character builds (which I would say there are around 4 or 5 for each class on average).

Am I a weirdo for feeling this way? I feel like a lot of the joy I got from 3.5 and Pathfinder is thinking about builds and how rules work together. I like that system mastery is part of Pathfinder, finding new builds and concepts within a vast myriad of rules.

I just can't get that with 5e and I feel as though maintaining complexity should be the core point of differentiation between the Pathfinder and D&D lines.

What do you think?

I am maybe gonna do more sections on specific classes and magic in general later maybe. Should this be on another board?

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Really? I'm a fan of Pathfinder's 'many options' but I feel like things have gone a little too far in that direction.

I also advise everybody who posts here to please, please remember the "no edition wars" rule.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

8 people marked this as a favorite.

To tip-toe carefully around this one:

Pathfinder's wealth of options is one of the things that I appreciate about it. I like that I and another player can both say something like "I'm going to create a halfling paladin who does ranged combat" and still come up with two completely different characters, in look, feel, and playstyle.

My experience with the current iteration of D&D does make me feel like maybe there aren't enough options, and like there isn't enough really new and innovative material. Currently, I feel like it's the tabletop RPG for 12 year olds, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me since they already had the 12 year olds with 4e. Maybe that will change with time or as I play around with it a bit more.

I think an "ideal" d20 RPG, if there is such a thing, probably lies somewhere in the middle, with a few less and more clearly defined moving parts than Pathfinder currently has, and more complexity and options than D&D's current iteration has.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Sslarn. The many, many options is what I like about Pathfinder. A system that simplifies or reduces things is not even on my radar.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the 5e feats are a good way to go and the logic should be adopted by Pathfinder. Not the choosing between stat bonus or feat part where They are mostly descriptions that affect multiple aspects of your character based on that description. A little too late for that in core but I think Homebrew/3pp can come up with 'condensed feats' that go beyond the scope of the common idea of scaling feats.

Other things I think should and can be easily adopted;

Hard limit for natural stat bonuses.

A lot of things about the magic, Scaling cantrips, spells that scale by preparing them at a higher level, being able to NOT prepare lower level spells if you want to.

Ability saves instead of the three saves.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
I'm with Sslarn. The many, many options is what I like about Pathfinder. A system that simplifies or reduces things is not even on my radar.

To elaborate on my earlier statement a bit:

I think that if at some distant date Paizo decided to roll out a second edition of Pathfinder, I'd probably prefer that it was something that kept the same basic chassis but was sure to unify everything and apply a little additional order to some of the existing functions like:

Ride/Handle Animal/ Mounted Combat: Explain how all of these come together in one solid cohesive unit. There's probably a really easy way to bring these together in the rules and probably actually save some paper.

Martial / Caster disparity: Not to get into this again, but we've got Lord of the Rings martials and uber-anime spellcasters. Shaving off the wildest spells (wish should be a racial ability of a few rare creatures, not a spell anyone can learn, create demiplane probably should be some kind of epic ritual and not a spell at all, scrying and its interaction with various other spells like teleportation effects should probably be fully considered and accounted for in the core rules, etc.) and giving martials a bit of a utility/capability boost at levels past 10 would be something I'd like to see.

What I don't want to see is a system that uses ideas like "every class should be dealing roughly X+Y at Z level with an even mix of direct damage and AoE", or a system that believes that clarity means removing options. Basically, my ideal tabletop RPG is just Pathfinder with a few more tweaks than they can really make via FAQ or errata. And maybe the scaling type feats we've seen in the last 2 editions of D&D.


There are so many good simple RPGs around these days I'm not sure why you'd decide to stick with D&D if that's what you were into, so 5e confuses me a bit.

Nobody can possibly like Forgotten Realms enough to stick with it just for the setting....right?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

More options is generally a good thing. At some point, however, it begins to interfere with world building. It becomes nearly impossible to create a compelling and consistent setting if you have to make room for thousands of possible race and class combinations.

At that point the game really needs text making it explicit that most campaigns aren't going to use all of the available options, and that it's the responsibility of the GM to pick which ones are used. (As, for example, in GURPS, where nobody expects that every rules-legal character is automatically going to be allowed.) I think PF has already reached that point, especially with the ARG and now the ACG.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mephnick wrote:

There are so many good simple RPGs around these days I'm not sure why you'd decide to stick with D&D if that's what you were into, so 5e confuses me a bit.

Nobody can possibly like Forgotten Realms enough to stick with it just for the setting....right?

My current appraisal of 5e is that I'll probably be buying their adventures and running them with Pathfinder characters and rules. As disappointing as the new PHB is, Hoard of the Dragon Queen looks phenomenal. If I get new AP's set in WotC IP that are mechanics neutral enough to port in Pathfinder mechanics, I'm in a pretty good place.


Gotta be careful here. There is just one book released for DnD. After reviewing the PHB, it's easy to see areas where additional options will be added to the game.


Ssalarn wrote:
Orthos wrote:


What I don't want to see is a system that uses ideas like "every class should be dealing roughly X+Y at Z level with an even mix of direct damage and AoE", or a system that believes that clarity means removing options. Basically, my ideal tabletop RPG is just Pathfinder with a few more tweaks than they can really make via FAQ or errata. And maybe the scaling type feats we've seen in the last 2 editions of D&D.

Couldn't agree more. That's what I found annoying about 4E and made me abandon it.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Myrnn wrote:
Gotta be careful here. There is just one book released for DnD. After reviewing the PHB, it's easy to see areas where additional options will be added to the game.

There's basically two "paths" for each class, and feats are painfully scarce (though of higher quality, so there's that). I feel like there's been a pretty high bar set, and so far, 5e has failed to meet it. The fact that they might later sell me the options I expected to have upfront isn't a big selling point for me....

Even in 4e, I could have an entire party all of the same class (same class and race even!) and have every character look and feel completely different. I'm not getting that out of what I've seen so far of the new PHB.

I bought the core books because I liked the art and I was interested to see what they might do with everything. As things stand, I think for me they might be a source of novels, video games, and Forgotten Realms (and other WotC IP) adventure paths going forward, but probably not my main source for tabletop mechanics unless I want something trimmed down and efficient for a new player to kind of test the waters with.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a point that is being over looked in the several 5th edition threads I've been reading is that many people are comparing the wealth of options in Pathfinder to the one and only 5E PHB. (Some are really only comparing it the starter box or free PDF). Pathfinder has 5 years of splat books, so yes obviously flexibility and options would be immensely more available in PF.

SSalarn wrote:
"I'm going to create a halfling paladin who does ranged combat" and still come up with two completely different characters, in look, feel, and playstyle.

Sure, this is true today, but would it be true if you only had the PF CRB? Probably not. If you invest in D&D 5E, you are starting a brand new game. WOTC is going to produce splat books and depending on how the OGL shakes out, 3PP are going to come out in droves to offer splat books as well. By that point, there may be a slightly more level playing field in comparing which system offers you more "options".

Not campaigning for 5th edition by any stretch of the imagination, just thought I'd throw that out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I think the 5e feats are a good way to go and the logic should be adopted by Pathfinder. Not the choosing between stat bonus or feat part where They are mostly descriptions that affect multiple aspects of your character based on that description. A little too late for that in core but I think Homebrew/3pp can come up with 'condensed feats' that go beyond the scope of the common idea of scaling feats.

Other things I think should and can be easily adopted;

Hard limit for natural stat bonuses.

A lot of things about the magic, Scaling cantrips, spells that scale by preparing them at a higher level, being able to NOT prepare lower level spells if you want to.

Ability saves instead of the three saves.

I kind of like 5e's "superfeats" but I am with you. I feel like options are still super scarce. I will concede to Wizards that at level 1, race and background are sort of "feat" options, but I really want those gameplay options to come soon. I think I might be happiest with getting my first super feat at level 2 and then get additional ones at 6, 10, 14, and 18 while I get stat boosts at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 (increasing two attributes by 1 or one attribute below 15 by 2).

I do like that stats cap at 20 (which is in line with 5e's essentially sensible "bounded accuracy" design philosophy) and that initial attributes start off a little lower (with 17 really being the maximum even after racial modifiers). I agree on liking all that stuff.

I forgot to mention the "6 save" design philosophy in my initial post. I really like the idea and it changes the way we have to think about the balance of charisma (a traditional dump stat) and intelligence (which is either a dump stat or a god stat depending on who you ask). However, I think it remains to be seen how useful stats like intelligence and charisma are (which largely have applications for non-adventure-y skills). That is going to have a lot to do with the way monsters are designed. I mean: which saves are really coming up at the table? Honestly, I am not even sure how balanced the game is yet. I need to see what high level monsters look like on average.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KaiserDM wrote:

I think a point that is being over looked in the several 5th edition threads I've been reading is that many people are comparing the wealth of options in Pathfinder to the one and only 5E PHB. (Some are really only comparing it the starter box or free PDF). Pathfinder has 5 years of splat books, so yes obviously flexibility and options would be immensely more available in PF.

SSalarn wrote:
"I'm going to create a halfling paladin who does ranged combat" and still come up with two completely different characters, in look, feel, and playstyle.
Sure, this is true today, but would it be true if you only had the PF CRB? ***

Yeah, it's absolutely true. The CRB has a huge wealth of options and materials. By comparison, it would probably require a member of our play group quitting or dying for us to be able to play even two campaigns of the new edition without some very apparent overlap. Even the 3.5 and 4e PHBs were vastly superior in the number of options they presented.

Have you held the new PHB in your hands and flicked through the pages, holding the remarkably slim tome with what appears to be 16 point font? A friend of mine, true story, was concerned that he'd picked up a misprint or juniors edition copy and went up to the store clerk to ensure that what he was holding was actually the new full-sized PHB. It is in a strict apples to apples comparison that I am finding myself disappointed. The new book doesn't only fail to stack up to the CRB in player content, but it fails to stack up to its 3.0, 3.5, and 4e counterparts.

The amount of dead levels in many of the classes was a little shocking as well, but having not played a full 1-20 yet, maybe that won't be as big an issue as my brain is trying to make me believe it will be.

KaiserDM wrote:

Sure, this is true today, but would it be true if you only had the PF CRB? Probably not. If you invest in D&D 5E, you are starting a brand new game. WOTC is going to produce splat books and depending on how the OGL shakes out, 3PP are going to come out in droves to offer splat books as well. By that point, there may be a slightly more level playing field in comparing which system offers you more "options".

Not campaigning for 5th edition by any stretch of the imagination, just thought I'd throw that out there.

I'd really like to have a game with a robust enough baseline that purchasing additional materials is an exciting expansion, not a necessity to keep everyone from getting bored cycling through the same fantasy tropes. As I mentioned earlier, being able to spend more money to get the game I should have received in the first place is not a selling point.

Regardless though, as of right now I'm definitely leaning towards this newest option being too simple, though supported by some really fun adventure modules in one of my favorite settings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer the current iterations of the 3.x product and homebrew rules, which does not include D&D 4e (though I know a few folks who rather enjoy it). I am highly unlikely to give 5e even a glance without significantly more information and releases - the OGL for 5e will determine that.

Hasbro pretty much lost me as a customer shortly after the release of 4e and the end of SWSE.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread is. Wizard's strategy with the new D&D is to create a simple foundation rule set and then expand it with more options. I do disagree with how they handled some options, but I feel this is all inconsequential to complain about it.


KaiserDM wrote:

I think a point that is being over looked in the several 5th edition threads I've been reading is that many people are comparing the wealth of options in Pathfinder to the one and only 5E PHB. (Some are really only comparing it the starter box or free PDF). Pathfinder has 5 years of splat books, so yes obviously flexibility and options would be immensely more available in PF.

SSalarn wrote:
"I'm going to create a halfling paladin who does ranged combat" and still come up with two completely different characters, in look, feel, and playstyle.

Sure, this is true today, but would it be true if you only had the PF CRB? Probably not. If you invest in D&D 5E, you are starting a brand new game. WOTC is going to produce splat books and depending on how the OGL shakes out, 3PP are going to come out in droves to offer splat books as well. By that point, there may be a slightly more level playing field in comparing which system offers you more "options".

Not campaigning for 5th edition by any stretch of the imagination, just thought I'd throw that out there.

Hey man: in 5e, you are not even getting a feat until level 4 and that is only going to be in the game if your GM wants it. Really, the "canonical" game does not even have feats.

Even beyond feats: classes get fewer spells readied/known (maybe wise?), classes generally have fewer class features (with attribute increases and proficiency bonuses being one of the "features" on the chart, likely to stop people from remarking on this), and the customization built into classes generally comes in a very small number of packages within the class (with--admittedly--an exception or two).

The game is clearly designed around only giving plays a small number of choices per level for "complicated" classes (such as a wizard who will get a few new spells and maybe a stat increase) and next to zero choices each level for "simple" classes (such as the frenzied barbarian whose build is almost entirely locked in from level 1).

The criticism is entirely valid, man.


Cyrad wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this thread is. Wizard's strategy with the new D&D is to create a simple foundation rule set and then expand it with more options. I do disagree with how they handled some options, but I feel this is all inconsequential to complain about it.

The point of the thread is to discuss 5e. It is clearly a different game than pathfinder, but what are the good things about it and what things are bad?

I realized that I disliked some things about it. For my preferences, I am listing and discussing the reasons that I would play pathfinder (both in its current iteration and as a brand) rather than 5e.

Is that not clear from my original post?


Ok, ok. Geez.


KaiserDM wrote:
Ok, ok. Geez.

Haha. I don't want to admonish you, man. I want to ask people how important is that lack of customization and complexity?

I have a weird argument. I kind of like pathfinder in part due to its complex gamey-ness. Other people still don't like that the reduction in complexity in 5e necessarily results in a decrease in player options.

As I noted in my first post, this decrease in complexity has bought 5e some pretty positive qualities, but it may not be the game for me or YOU for that matter.

I feel like most people want a really simple game, though (most people aren't me as it turns out). How much customization should be given up in the name of tractability? More importantly: how much customization should be given up to capture the majority of the market?

I am perhaps selfishly putting forth that Pathfinder should stay complex in future editions to differentiate itself from 5e and the world of retro-clones that multiply every day.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

It's just weird that basically everything that's happened since 2e has been "give players more options and creative facility with their characters", and then we've jumped back to this baseline where it's simple to learn and play, but with painfully few options for customizing and personalizing your character.

Maybe it's not aimed at me though. They did that big 2 year long playtest, right? Maybe this is what most people actually want and I just need to be content with what I've got. As I noted earlier, I think Pathfinder is currently the best tabletop RPG out there, and I would hope that any future iteration thereof doesn't involve the kind of retreat to simplicity we're seeing on the other side of the fence.

Maybe if/when WotC starts releasing the campaign setting books I'll find something that makes me reconsider what I'm currently viewing as "the mechanical deficiencies".


Ssalarn wrote:

It's just weird that basically everything that's happened since 2e has been "give players more options and creative facility with their characters", and then we've jumped back to this baseline where it's simple to learn and play, but with painfully few options for customizing and personalizing your character.

Maybe it's not aimed at me though. They did that big 2 year long playtest, right? Maybe this is what most people actually want and I just need to be content with what I've got. As I noted earlier, I think Pathfinder is currently the best tabletop RPG out there, and I would hope that any future iteration thereof doesn't involve the kind of retreat to simplicity we're seeing on the other side of the fence.

Maybe if/when WotC starts releasing the campaign setting books I'll find something that makes me reconsider what I'm currently viewing as "the mechanical deficiencies".

I think you have it exactly, man. I think 5e is a focus group tested game that is additionally aimed at drawing in all the people who are still playing 2e and 4e.

As a note: aside from what I have seen on forums and thought myself, the 5e book is being reviewed really well, I think. It is maybe even to a point where I worry that no one is going to design games for me anymore unless I design one myself.

At the same time: I maybe think that they might have designed 5e specifically to ignore the sorts of people who would like Pathfinder most, as they were less than confident that they could make those people jump ship to their competitors.

On what board should I post marketing analysis?


I haven't picked up the PHB yet, but based on the Basic Rules and those bits of the playtest material I've been able to look at, it looks like WoTC is deliberately heading in the "rules lite" direction, where most of the options are in the character concept and in the role playing choices rather than in the game mechanics.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Player's Handbook hasn't released yet. It doesn't officially release until the 19th. So it feels extremely presumptious.

Besides, this is the Pathfinder homebrew forum...


Cyrad wrote:

The Player's Handbook hasn't released yet. It doesn't officially release until the 19th. So it feels extremely presumptious.

Besides, this is the Pathfinder homebrew forum...

It pre-released friday. I own the book. It is mine. And I posted about it here because of the "suggestions" part of this board. I have suggestions for pathfinder's design philosophy and branding. Also note that I mention what I like about 5e. I suggest working towards those same design goals in future editions.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Cyrad wrote:

The Player's Handbook hasn't released yet. It doesn't officially release until the 19th. So it feels extremely presumptious.

Besides, this is the Pathfinder homebrew forum...

It is available at all of the local gaming stores in the Seattle area. My copy is on the shelf, so when I'm talking about it, I'm talking about the actual printed final release version.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the easy entry simplicity of 5E for getting inexperienced or new players in the game and playing, including making a halfway decent character without having to have much gamemastery. One of the big drawbacks of 3.5x/PF is that you can go really wrong right out of the gate with your character without a pretty solid understanding of the game. Also the volume of feats and traits in PF, while awesome for those in the game a long time, are downright intimidating and daunting to new players. 5E is reminiscent of 1e/2e games where the mechanics were in the background more and storytelling/RPing was the focus just because the mechanics had less impact in the overall game.

The downside is that I felt like 5E was more comparable to the Pathfinder Beginner Box (stripped down version of PF) than the full version of PF. IMO they would have been better off doubling the size of the PHB and using the 2nd half to detail the "options" where you can fill in the blanks or simplified areas of 5E with other optional rules to add complexity and variety to the game. This would have been a great place to add new character ability scores like Luck/Fortune, variant feat rules, new RP driven reward trees, or any number of other gazillion cool things that would make the basic game feel less like a dumbed down version of all the "DnD-ish" games most of us have been playing for the last 10+ years or so. This would have the added benefit of making every gaming table a unique but recognizable environment, depending on which options they used.

I really like the concept and a lot of the direction that 5E went in, but I feel like they stopped short of where they should have ended up. If this was intentional to sell more books, I suspect this is a strategy that will backfire. If it was simply the new direction the game is being taken, I find it a bit disappointing. I suspect that the the complaint "all class/race combos seem the same" that started in 4E is going to continue into 5E. I think with a little more work, there could have been options added in to negate this argument, which would have encouraged more 3.5 diehards to give it a chance.


For my group we like the complexity. Had we wanted a simpler game there are many options we could have gone with. Yes there are some finiky things that need work and there are some elements in 5E I quite like (Spell Scaling by Spell Slot instead of caster level for one), but I think it will be several years before it has enough options to be attractive to my group.

Just with the official Paizo stuff ther is tons of things to experiment with. Follow up with the 3rd Party stuff and there isn't much I can't do with the system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen the PHB yet, but I like what I see in the Basic Rules. Will it replace Pathfinder for me? No. Will it be a welcome break from the supreme crunch of Pathfinder from time-to-time? Yes.

I'm running a RotRL game right now and had to take a break just after we started Book 4 because dealing with all the numbers and monster abilities/spells to make sure I could properly challenge my larger-than-normal party was becoming tedious.

There are times I enjoy spending hours poring through books and crunching numbers and having it all mesh together into a PC/NPC/Monster that is effective and memorable. Other times I just want to roll up a fighter in chainmail and bash some orcs without thinking about it too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm certainly interested in looking at it.

The free basic rules are kind of interesting, and I've heard some interesting things from reviews.

Ultimately, though, if asked right now? I'd tend to hold onto PF's complexity and, if I wanted a simple game, go with Hero Kids.

While that may sound like a cop-out or a dis on 5E, it's not: Hero Kids is actually a surprisingly solid system (despite some of the pregen player characters being notably sub-par in their creation). It's a customizable game with simple rules, and variable abilities that don't require a lot of extra work to keep track of, but still lets you set up your character and bash some orcs.

My point is simply that there are excellent options out there - I'm not sure I'd need a simplified system.

That said, I'm interested in world-building and I generally like my mechanics to back up that idea.

mephnick wrote:
Nobody can possibly like Forgotten Realms enough to stick with it just for the setting....right?

I do.

JoeJ wrote:
More options is generally a good thing. At some point, however, it begins to interfere with world building. It becomes nearly impossible to create a compelling and consistent setting if you have to make room for thousands of possible race and class combinations.

Only to a point.

To me, it doesn't interfere unless you want it to, any more than having a new monster manual bestiary interferes with it. I honestly enjoy the vast variety, and the many, many different ways that the system can be used to fit the world.

Heck, in at least a few cases, the new options enabled world building that I was struggling with before.

Now, that's not to say that restricting is inherently a bad thing. There are several settings that I've created with restrictions. I'm just not sold on the "more options necessarily interferes" idea. But... I'm weird, so there's always that to consider.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was obvious that they were not catering this edition to the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder fan base, but were trying a more simpler game approach to bring in the 1E and 2E players, as well as 4E players and people sick of 3rd edition.

Which I think is a good choice...I think it's healthier that DnD systems by different companies have completely different design philosophies. Gaming needs more diversification, not less, and hopefully this edition shakes out a few new approaches or design mechanics that can improve future game systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:


JoeJ wrote:
More options is generally a good thing. At some point, however, it begins to interfere with world building. It becomes nearly impossible to create a compelling and consistent setting if you have to make room for thousands of possible race and class combinations.

Only to a point.

To me, it doesn't interfere unless you want it to, any more than having a new monster manual bestiary interferes with it. I honestly enjoy the vast variety, and the many, many different ways that the system can be used to fit the world.

Heck, in at least a few cases, the new options enabled world building that I was struggling with before.

Now, that's not to say that restricting is inherently a bad thing. There are several settings that I've created with restrictions. I'm just not sold on the "more options necessarily interferes" idea. But... I'm weird, so there's always that to consider.

I think the crux of the matter is options for whom? Options for the GM are almost always going to make world building easier. Options for the PCs, however, tend to create obligations for the GM when they're coupled with the expectation that the GM is "supposed to" allow any combination that's in the rules.

Obviously Rule 0 lets the GM exclude anything they want, and most GMs who create their own world probably do eliminate some options that just don't fit. But once the number of options gets very high it becomes more a matter of choosing which ones are allowed rather than choosing which ones aren't.

At that point - which I think PF has definitely reached - it would help greatly if there were some of official statement in the rules recognizing that GMs are expected to choose what works for the campaign they have in mind, and that players should not assume that a character will be allowed simply because they were built according to the rules. That change in player expectations makes it easier for GMs, especially less experienced ones, to build a world with its own unique flavor to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@JoeJ, while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, I don't think GMs need a little blurb of text to tell their players the GM is the final arbiter and so on (see The Most Important Rule).

The GMs that NEED this are still going to let their players brow beat or walk all over them. They NEED a backbone, which Paizo cannot provide.

Edit: On second thought, I'm sure Paizo could provide a backbone, for the low-low price of one of their hardcover books. As an added bonus, it would contain a pamplet chock full of new spells and feats for monks!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Da'ath wrote:

@JoeJ, while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, I don't think GMs need a little blurb of text to tell their players the GM is the final arbiter and so on (see The Most Important Rule).

The GMs that NEED this are still going to let their players brow beat or walk all over them. They NEED a backbone, which Paizo cannot provide.

Edit: On second thought, I'm sure Paizo could provide a backbone, for the low-low price of one of their hardcover books. As an added bonus, it would contain a pamplet chock full of new spells and feats for monks!

I think it would benefit new GMs to be told that they're not just allowed to pick and choose, they're expected to. And for players to be told that the normal sequence is to consult with the GM and then create your character, rather than the other way around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand what you're saying, JoeJ, but what I'm saying is that I disagree. One both counts.

First: the fundamental increase of options does not, inherently, restrict world-building or GMing. It can, and in those cases, certainly, it would be within the GM's rights to alter their setting.

However, I'm very much so on the side of the fence that says "everyone is a player", including the GM, and a GM should enjoy the game they run.

Second: while the GM has the most say (by virtue of being the GM), having that much say also comes with the responsibility to cater to the players in a general way (rather than a specific "anything you want) and as a whole (rather than "to each individual").

This, in fact, is exactly what the rules explain.

Given the existence of Rule 0, and the general "empowerment" of GMs in general in the writings, I, personally find no need for the explicit disclaimer, since I feel it's already there.

That said, I don't think you're "wrong" in your desire, per se, only that I disagree with your conclusions and/or feel that the disclaimer is already present. I do understand your position, however, and if you do feel differently (that it inherently restricts world-building) and you don't read the various disclaimers of GM empowerment and duty as citation enough, than I can definitely see your point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

I understand what you're saying, JoeJ, but what I'm saying is that I disagree. One both counts.

First: the fundamental increase of options does not, inherently, restrict world-building or GMing. It can, and in those cases, certainly, it would be within the GM's rights to alter their setting.

However, I'm very much so on the side of the fence that says "everyone is a player", including the GM, and a GM should enjoy the game they run.

Second: while the GM has the most say (by virtue of being the GM), having that much say also comes with the responsibility to cater to the players in a general way (rather than a specific "anything you want) and as a whole (rather than "to each individual").

This, in fact, is exactly what the rules explain.

Given the existence of Rule 0, and the general "empowerment" of GMs in general in the writings, I, personally find no need for the explicit disclaimer, since I feel it's already there.

That said, I don't think you're "wrong" in your desire, per se, only that I disagree with your conclusions and/or feel that the disclaimer is already present. I do understand your position, however, and if you do feel differently (that it inherently restricts world-building) and you don't read the various disclaimers of GM empowerment and duty as citation enough, than I can definitely see your point.

I may just be reacting to the boards where I see people claiming that their uber-build is RAW (using 4,321 different 3pp), so any GM who wouldn't allow it is just trying to kill everybody else's fun and they would never play with that kind of tyrant. I admit I don't usually run into those people in r/l. (And if I did, I wouldn't have any trouble telling that idiot not to let the door hit him on the way out.)


JoeJ wrote:
And if I did, I wouldn't have any trouble telling that idiot not to let the door hit him on the way out.

I'm right with you.


That's perfectly fine, too! Even if it was a personal preference, it would just be me disagreeing with that preference. ^-^

(Although I totally did the first part - for fun - with first-party materials, and never asked nor expected a GM to let me run him... then one did... and it has been pretty awesome... ;P)

Ultimately, it comes down to each group's social contract. Given the existence of the large number of options any given GM can and should be willing to limit it to their own comfort level just as any player can and should be free to state that they don't like that preference. Then, as almost always happens in real life when two people conflict, either they work something out via compromise (which is what I suspect happens the vast majority of the time), or that GM's game doesn't get played (something that I suspect only rarely happens).

On the forums, it seems that both views take ever-larger proportions and until they're all blown out of proportion.

Thus, I can entirely understand your reaction. :)

I usually take a "Sure, why not?" approach, but sometimes I have a, "Here's what fits the campaign better." too.

Others don't do that.

Both sound like pretty awesome games in the making, to me.


I have a strong feeling I will be buying the 5th edition PHB and setting it on the shelf next to my fourth edition PHB and using it the exact same number of times (zero).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually played a couple of 4E games before my group and I lost interest. We all bought the big bundle box (PHB, DMG, MM) that came out on release day. I know where mine is, it got packed away with my bazillion 3.5 books when I moved, but I know at least one of my old gaming group left theirs behind when they moved.

That said I do everything in PDF these days.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Have you held the new PHB in your hands and flicked through the pages, holding the remarkably slim tome with what appears to be 16 point font? A friend of mine, true story, was concerned that he'd picked up a misprint or juniors edition copy and went up to the store clerk to ensure that what he was holding was actually the new full-sized PHB. It is in a strict apples to apples comparison that I am finding myself disappointed. The new book doesn't only fail to stack up to the CRB in player content, but it fails to stack up to its 3.0, 3.5, and 4e counterparts.

Perhaps your friend overreacted and should have actually looked at the page count of his "slim" rulebook before asking because it ties as the biggest rulebooks for D&D yet.

Per Amazon.com
1st Edition PHB - 126 pages
2nd Edition PHB - 255 pages
3.5 PHB - 320 pages
4th Edition PHB - 317 pages
5th Edition PHB - 320 pages

If he was comparing to the CRB then that is a mistake because it was both the players and DM's information crammed into one book.

Personally I am looking forward to trying something out that is a little simpler. After thirty years of gaming and every edition of D&D and then Pathfinder, I want a little simpler. I still intend to play Pathfinder in our ongoing campaign but hope to try out 5th edition as well. I suspect that there are people who will leave Pathfinder for the simplicity of 5th edition and people who play 5th who decide to move to Pathfinder for the complexity.

In all likelihood, in the next few years, D&D will grow more complex as Wizards continues to release more splat books. In the end, there is no wrong choice, play the game that best appeals to you and you players.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nim Folkor wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Have you held the new PHB in your hands and flicked through the pages, holding the remarkably slim tome with what appears to be 16 point font? A friend of mine, true story, was concerned that he'd picked up a misprint or juniors edition copy and went up to the store clerk to ensure that what he was holding was actually the new full-sized PHB. It is in a strict apples to apples comparison that I am finding myself disappointed. The new book doesn't only fail to stack up to the CRB in player content, but it fails to stack up to its 3.0, 3.5, and 4e counterparts.

Perhaps your friend overreacted and should have actually looked at the page count of his "slim" rulebook before asking because it ties as the biggest rulebooks for D&D yet.

Per Amazon.com
1st Edition PHB - 126 pages
2nd Edition PHB - 255 pages
3.5 PHB - 320 pages
4th Edition PHB - 317 pages
5th Edition PHB - 320 pages

If he was comparing to the CRB then that is a mistake because it was both the players and DM's information crammed into one book.

If you haven't seen it yet, it really is slim. I'm not holding my copy in hand so I can't double-check the page-count, but the book itself is visibly and substantially narrower than my 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and APG books. And then you crack it open and the player content is equally slim, with the actual content substantially padded with art (which is beautiful and not a source of complaint), the rules necessary to play the game, and a small bestiary to get you going. For a $50 book, it's really light on content.

I will say there's some stuff they definitely did right. Eldritch Knight is actually a core Fighter build you can play right from level 1, which is awesome, and Arcane Trickster is a core Rogue build. Obviously Pathfinder saw the need of being able to play character concepts right from level 1 before 5e ever released similar material, but the fact that I can get a new player into a simplified game but still let him play complex concepts like that is pretty cool.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
I may just be reacting to the boards where I see people claiming that their uber-build is RAW (using 4,321 different 3pp), so any GM who wouldn't allow it is just trying to kill everybody else's fun and they would never play with that kind of tyrant. I admit I don't usually run into those people in r/l.

I don't believe you've run in to those kind of people on the messageboards. I'm sorry but that statement goes so far beyond hyperbole I don't even know what to call it anymore. What it is, is a wildly exaggerated and intentionally divisive statement that creates a metaphorical caricature using inaccurate tropes to lash out at undeserving targets.

I've been on the boards posting consistently for several years now, and I've never once seen anyone that matches your above description. Moreover, almost all of the truly "broken" builds come from the CRB and APG, which are rife with either legacy issues, unintended synergies, or plain old power creep. By contrast, I honestly can't think of any 3pp materials brought to our table that weren't as or more balanced than the Paizo core line. DSP's psionics are well-known for their great balance, LRGG takes great care with their materials, the Genius Games lines may actually over-correct and leave their classes under-powered to compensate for the fact that some of them introduce unique dynamics into the game, Rite Publishing creates amazing thematic materials that, again, may actually be a step down in power compared to their CRB/APG counterparts...

I'm not saying that there might not be some 3pp materials out there that aren't well balanced, but most of the well known ones take great care in the balance of their products, probably even more so than Paizo since their customer base is so much smaller and less secure.

If someone is saying that a thing is RAW and their GM is telling them it's broken and not allowed, it would not surprise me to discover that either
a) The proposed build is straight out of Paizo materials
or
b) If it is actually a 3pp build, it isn't broken at all and the GM is actually basing his analysis on a bunch of uninformed drivel he read regurgitated on a messageboard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
I may just be reacting to the boards where I see people claiming that their uber-build is RAW (using 4,321 different 3pp), so any GM who wouldn't allow it is just trying to kill everybody else's fun and they would never play with that kind of tyrant. I admit I don't usually run into those people in r/l.
I don't believe you've run in to those kind of people on the messageboards. I'm sorry but that statement goes so far beyond hyperbole I don't even know what to call it anymore. What it is, is a wildly exaggerated and intentionally divisive statement that creates a metaphorical caricature using inaccurate tropes to lash out at undeserving targets. <snip>

Keep your personal attacks to yourself. There's no call for rudeness.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
I may just be reacting to the boards where I see people claiming that their uber-build is RAW (using 4,321 different 3pp), so any GM who wouldn't allow it is just trying to kill everybody else's fun and they would never play with that kind of tyrant. I admit I don't usually run into those people in r/l.
I don't believe you've run in to those kind of people on the messageboards. I'm sorry but that statement goes so far beyond hyperbole I don't even know what to call it anymore. What it is, is a wildly exaggerated and intentionally divisive statement that creates a metaphorical caricature using inaccurate tropes to lash out at undeserving targets.

So I take it you've never read a RavingDork thread? :P


I'm not sold on the new system. I don't necessarily dislike it, but I'm not on the bandwagon, either. I've read through the Basic Rules, don't own but have leafed through the PHB, and have played in one fairly quick level 1 introductory game.

I like the idea of simplifying, but from what I've seen, I think it's gone a touch too far in that direction for my taste. It seems like they wanted to give you a few unique options for each race and class, then let you bring your own uniqueness in how you RP the character, background, and story.

I can appreciate that if it's their goal, but shouldn't that be the goal of any rp system? rules-light or otherwise? I mean, I've always strived to differentiate my Pathfinder characters in the same vein ... I just have the additional benefit of having enough unique race features, class features, traits and feats to make my character as mechanically-unique as his concept it.

I like to tinker with new systems, and this one has some interesting new bits and pieces (Advantage/Disadvantage, for example), but overall I'm just not there. Maybe more resources and options will alleviate that in time, but from the get-go, I'm left with a bit of a 'meh' attitude about it.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
I may just be reacting to the boards where I see people claiming that their uber-build is RAW (using 4,321 different 3pp), so any GM who wouldn't allow it is just trying to kill everybody else's fun and they would never play with that kind of tyrant. I admit I don't usually run into those people in r/l.
I don't believe you've run in to those kind of people on the messageboards. I'm sorry but that statement goes so far beyond hyperbole I don't even know what to call it anymore. What it is, is a wildly exaggerated and intentionally divisive statement that creates a metaphorical caricature using inaccurate tropes to lash out at undeserving targets. <snip>

Keep your personal attacks to yourself. There's no call for rudeness.

I was neither rude nor making a personal attack. I was pointing out that you said something which was a wildly exaggerated and intentionally divisive statement that creates a metaphorical caricature using inaccurate tropes to lash out at undeserving targets.

Kthulhu wrote:
So I take it you've never read a RavingDork thread? :P

RD hasn't ever claimed that 3pp materials are RAW, and much as I mentioned, most of his "crazy" builds are pulled right out of the Paizo core line.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Eben TheQuiet wrote:

I'm not sold on the new system. I don't necessarily dislike it, but I'm not on the bandwagon, either. I've read through the Basic Rules, don't own but have leafed through the PHB, and have played in one fairly quick level 1 introductory game.

I like the idea of simplifying, but from what I've seen, I think it's gone a touch too far in that direction for my taste. It seems like they wanted to give you a few unique options for each race and class, then let you bring your own uniqueness in how you RP the character, background, and story.

I can appreciate that if it's their goal, but shouldn't that be the goal of any rp system? rules-light or otherwise? I mean, I've always strived to differentiate my Pathfinder characters in the same vein ... I just have the additional benefit of having enough unique race features, class features, traits and feats to make my character as mechanically-unique as his concept it.

I like to tinker with new systems, and this one has some interesting new bits and pieces (Advantage/Disadvantage, for example), but overall I'm just not there. Maybe more resources and options will alleviate that in time, but from the get-go, I'm left with a bit of a 'meh' attitude about it.

I agree with what (I think) you're saying to a pretty fair degree here. I've never needed "blank space" to be able to build my character. I get the idea of not having rules that might impede on roleplaying, but by that same token, sometimes the rules help roleplaying. I know that for some of my newer players having rules laid out in the form of skills, environmental mechanics, feats, etc. actually helped them feel more invested in the game. That was a fair portion of what prompted our transition from 4e to Pathfinder, when PF was originally intended as a bit of a one-off so I could play with some 3.5 systems that I hadn't gotten to tinker with as much as I wanted and so my friend could get his steampunk fix. When we discovered that some of the players in our group who'd been traditionally less invested in the game were using the additional mechanics to really expand on their character concepts, we ended up sticking around.

I think that 5e will make a great "gateway" drug for RPGs.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't feel that comparing a single player's handbook to Pathfinder in general is a fair comparison. The Player Handbook 5e, no DMG, MM, or various splat books...compared to Pathfinder. Of course Pathfinder has a ton more options, that's what all the additional books did. I personally like the background/race variations and can see gigantic future options to be released.
Another thing is that I do agree that the mechanics seem simpler, and this is something that I see as a positive thing. I am currently tired of high level combat in Pathfinder and would rather never do it again. It shouldn't take an hour to get through an encounter that lasts 5 round IMO, and even if you take pains to streamline combat it still takes about that long. I want a simpler game system and I think that 5e may provide that depending on how they move forward with splat books.

I look forward to the changes and don't curse 5e for not being Pathfinder....I want something different. If Pathfinder makes a version 2 then I will be looking at it to also be different.

1 to 50 of 445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Lessons for 2nd Edition: 5th Edition D&D and Pathfinder's Complexity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.