Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Things Pathfinder does better than 5th ed


5th Edition (And Beyond)

301 to 316 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

The Sword wrote:
the 'customise everything' element that 3rd ed and to a greater extent Pathfinder has is a relatively new phenomena in d&d. Yet it seems to have become the standard. I can see why it is attractive but I also see Phantoms point that it has become incredibly la out intensive.

It's true, 3E took the average person a lot of time to grok. After being popular for a decade plus, folks do tend to expect/lean towards a more complicated and robust chargen system. Though its obvious now that casual players are relived to have another popular option.

The Sword wrote:
There are twelve classes (plus 3rd party and UA trials) and three or four times that number of Archetypes. That is a lot of scope for customised characters particularly for a game that's only 2-3 years old.

Sounds like a lot, but honestly there isn't that much choice beyond choosing class/archetype. The one thing I definitely wish there were more of is backgrounds and feats.

The Sword wrote:
Keeping the integrity of the classes allows the game to be far more balanced. That is a massive plus for me. If the trade off is less variation than pathfinder well I consider 5e with its feats and archetypes a happy medium between pf and 1st/2nd ed.

The "integrity" also invites the feel of "sameyness" However, I too think 5E strikes a fair balance between old and new D&D. The good news is for the first time there are two very popular fantasy gaming systems. Even better, the two offer similar yet different experiences. I think this is a huge overall plus, even if 5E isn't a game I care to play.

The Sword wrote:
Incidentally I have no problem with a wizard if he has trained to throw a dagger all his life and is just as dexterous as a fighter being able to use it with the same accuracy. After all the fighter has trained with all weapons to the same level and is attacking two to four times faster. The fighter definitely doesn't suffer in 5e.

I don't mind this change either. BA allows folks to explore character mechanics outside specialization without being worse than worthless. Some folks have a very difficult time rethinking accuracy though.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2097 wrote:
I was nitpicking against the "at least three rounds" thing. Sometimes you can die a lot sooner. We usually discuss the reasonable targets together; intelligent monsters more often turn towards non-fallen threats, some other monsters are more like forces of nature and will eat up their fallen targets right away. Like stirges.

Perhaps zombies would have no regard for their safety and go to devour the fallen immediately, but most creatures have a self-preservation instinct greater than their urge to feed.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I got eaten by an owlbear once. :-(


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Perhaps zombies would have no regard for their safety and go to devour the fallen immediately, but most creatures have a self-preservation instinct greater than their urge to feed.

I still think it was awful calling it a "douche move". It was really hurtful. If it really was such a "douche move" those rules, especially the ones making it cause two fails when close up, wouldn't be in the game.

Not that I would blame someone for putting in some sort of house rule making it safer to fall in combat, either. Just because I don't think using the rule is a "douche move" doesn't mean that NOT using it is a "douche move" either.

Anyway, I don't rule zero, I try to be a fair referee of what would happen. Sometimes asking the players for input, sometimes going to the dice, and sometimes going with my own gut. If they really disagree with a call, we've done a "time rewind" sometimes, to see how it would play out if we would've done it differently.

Stirges, especially, have rules that imply that they stick to their targets to harm them every round.

Some monsters are evil, some are dangerous, some are mindless, some are aware of things like medicine, stabilization, healing spells etc.

As an analogy: In 5e, the enemy type "zombie" can come back, they get a saving throw every time they would die to instead not die. Sometimes the PCs concentrate on killing one of those zombies fully instead of starting with just knocking every zombie down temporarily. I wouldn't call that a "douche move" on the players part. They're doing what they think is best in order to win the fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good Lord, calling 5e rules light is more than a little hyperbolic.

Pathfinder is literally the single most rules heavy game you can play, the only really difference between it's difficulty to manage and GURPs is GURPs isn't part of an OGL allowing an SRD. There are maybe a handful of games as complicated. If I wanted a better set of rules than Pathfinder for that in-depth of a fantasy adventure game I would play Mythras with the Classic Fantasy expansion which has more customization, leagues better map-based combat, and simply plays smoother as a GM.

5e is not a lightweight game. There are a lot of rules, but you are just used to them. I think what must be getting confused is rules light versus streamlined, because as a DM for 5e I can keep things moving extremely quickly and use the basic mechanics for the vast majority of situations. That alone doesn't make 5e rules light, because the exact same thing can be said for Mythras because the resolution mechanics are easier to grasp.

EDIT

Also, I use homebrew for reaching 0HP. I use the injury rules in the DMG, and I don't have players fall unconscious at 0HP unless they choose to on their turn to stabilize. You do have disadvantage on everything but death saving throws at 0HP (and move at half speed).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apologies if I mention something some one else has, but I didn't feel like reading all 7 pages of posts.

I have played both systems and can understand why some folks like 5th ed.

That said, having played a cleric to 8th level in 5th ed, I feel like all my character development decisions were made by 3rd level. There was very little excitement to leveling up. Yay, pick one or two more spells. Pick up some hit points.

As a Pathfinder player, I have feats and prestige classes enabling me to make many more development decisions for my character. I get to spend skill points and develop my character at each level. In 5th ed too much of that is automated for my taste.


hiiamtom wrote:

Good Lord, calling 5e rules light is more than a little hyperbolic.

Pathfinder is literally the single most rules heavy game you can play, the only really difference between it's difficulty to manage and GURPs is GURPs isn't part of an OGL allowing an SRD. There are maybe a handful of games as complicated. If I wanted a better set of rules than Pathfinder for that in-depth of a fantasy adventure game I would play Mythras with the Classic Fantasy expansion which has more customization, leagues better map-based combat, and simply plays smoother as a GM.

5e is not a lightweight game. There are a lot of rules, but you are just used to them. I think what must be getting confused is rules light versus streamlined, because as a DM for 5e I can keep things moving extremely quickly and use the basic mechanics for the vast majority of situations. That alone doesn't make 5e rules light, because the exact same thing can be said for Mythras because the resolution mechanics are easier to grasp.

EDIT

Also, I use homebrew for reaching 0HP. I use the injury rules in the DMG, and I don't have players fall unconscious at 0HP unless they choose to on their turn to stabilize. You do have disadvantage on everything but death saving throws at 0HP (and move at half speed).

Good point. My 5E PHB doesn't feel and smaller than my 2E PHB. Maybe a bit smaller than my World of Darkness core book, but that has a LOT of fluff stories in it. It does look a bit more like 5E is 'average' and Pathfinder is 'Heavy'.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I played a hill dwarf Life cleric acolyte from 1st to 14th level (RotRL conversion), using the standard array (14 8 16 (includes +2 racial + Resilient feat +1) 10 20 (includes +1 racial and +4 ASI) 12) and he was really fun, except for failing every Dexterity save ever and almost always going last in initiative. :-P

I found the new spell accesses fun and interesting. Every couple levels, I got new toys to play with. Every 4 levels or so, I learned how to optimize those tools. ;-) I really enjoyed being a support player. Bless is amazing, but it took me a while to realize that it was worth eating up a 3rd level on a 1st level spell if it let me bless the whole party. By the time we got a 6th player, I didn't mind spending a 4th level slot to bless everyone.


The Sword wrote:

As far as I'm concerned monsters continuing to strike unconscious characters is a douche move that I would never do as a DM unless there were no other standing targets or some overwhelming story reason why that character had to die. DMs that target fallen PCs in the face of other threats is turning the game into a them vs us situation.

AoE attacks are where I saw it happen. The prone character was just incidental damage while hitting two or three others.

Liberty's Edge

I think it all depends on how smart a npc or monster is. In the same way a pc will finish off a weaker creature or npc. So should a intelligent creature or npc. As well the type of creature also is a factor. I can see zombies and ghouls attack a unconscious pc. As i could see a hobgoblin coup de grace the same pc. As the poster above me pointed out a badly placed Fireball or Alchemical bomb can also take out a pc. If a general agreement was made that no matter what unconscious oc dont die. Expect pc death while not a common occurrence can happen. Adventuring is not a safe pastime imo.


I base targeting of downed characters entirely upon the foe in question and the current situation. Something just interested in eating is much more likely to drag an unconscious foe away rather than deciding to chow down on the spot while still being threatened. A creature that is particularly cruel/vicious or driven by a supernatural hunger, on the other hand, probably starts feeding immediately.

Intelligent enemies faced with foes that have displayed the ability to heal downed comrades and get them back in the fight will certain engage in a "double-tap" if that's the smart move in that circumstance (especially if the downed character has been particularly troublesome prior to that point.)

Motivation also matters. If an enemy's goal is self-preservation, they might flee once there are no active targets directly threatening them. An enemy trying to rob characters or drive them off, on the other hand, is probably going to ignore downed foes. But if it's personal and they are seeking to cause the PCs physical or emotional anguish? They're probably going to make downed characters a priority.

ETA: I also think it's important that the DM and the players are on the same page. If the players assume downed PCs are off-limits and then the DM targets them, there's likely to be some problems. The DM needs to be up front with his players and tell them "I will play the monsters according to their nature, including targeting downed characters when it makes sense."


Good points made. Apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings.

I revise my previous comment to say that going after a downed PC in the face of standing PC posing a threat is a douche move unless there are compelling reasons why the downed PC would be a continuing target.

The difficult thing is that as the DM gets to decide the enemies motivations and aims they can't really dodge the responsibility for NPC behaviors. This is a little off topic for the purpose of the thread but it is interesting. When in the cut and thrust of combat I don't think it's typical behavior for the foes to stop and slit the throats of downed enemies, you're too busy swinging and avoiding the next blow.

If other PCs have fled then that's a different story but there are still creative ways that beasts might not kill instantly. Many animals keep prey alive after capturing, particularly if there are young to feed.

Ultimately it comes down to play style but I have little sympathy for DMs who gleefully chalk up another death by engineering NPC/monster actions to coup'de'grace players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

5E has no dead levels, if you count access to new spell levels.

It doesn't...but then again, it also lacks significant choices in what those abilities are and those abilities being significant in the first place. You get most of your playstyle defining stuff in the first three levels and the rest is a mixed bag from meh to cool just like Pathfinder.

Um....a 5e Fighter gets 7 Ability Score Improvements (or Feats), 5 specific features from their arch-type, a Fighting style, action surge (2 uses by 17th level), Indomitable, and Second Wind in 20 levels of playing a class. I'm not sure how many more choices you need? The Battle Master allows for MORE choices via maneuvers. the Eldritch Knight allows for spell selections at various levels.

But then again PF has this cool feature that allows me to don or remove my armor quicker........


The Sword wrote:

Good points made. Apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings.

I revise my previous comment to say that going after a downed PC in the face of standing PC posing a threat is a douche move unless there are compelling reasons why the downed PC would be a continuing target.

The difficult thing is that as the DM gets to decide the enemies motivations and aims they can't really dodge the responsibility for NPC behaviors. This is a little off topic for the purpose of the thread but it is interesting. When in the cut and thrust of combat I don't think it's typical behavior for the foes to stop and slit the throats of downed enemies, you're too busy swinging and avoiding the next blow.

Yeah, you're right when it comes to typical situations. Thank you for apologizing, I was surprised at myself for reacting so strongly. Ugh, being a DM is tricky... why are those "attacking downed PC:s" rules even in there, they just seem so cruel.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a 5e convert, and I'd like to give the reasons why...

Pathfinder requires planning. I prefer my characters to grow organically and it doesn't feel like you can do this in Pathfinder. All the interesting feats come as part of chian. It feels like you either have to plan for the expected level in a campaign ahead of time, or suffer with less power.

Pathfinder has too many options, this is a non-argument for many people, but during chargen I stricken with ridiculous analasys paralasis, constantly thinking that there should be a perfect feat somewhere if only it had a logical name... Not to mention Archetypes (why did you not learn from the mess of AD&D2's kits) or massive number of classes. I know some people like this sort of thing, but it feels like Magic the Gathering, where more than half of the game is building.

In D&D 5, it feels liberating, a couple of pages of feats, which feel fare more meaty than PF/3/.5 and don't get stricken with prerequisites. You can make characters fit what you want to in most cases that I've tried.

Perhaps its because I'm getting older, I used to love scouring Dragon or the complete handbooks for new character options, but now I just want to actually play the game.

Also I'd like to say that it strikes a middle ground, I don't actually like rules-lite systems either, I've tried FATE, Savage Worlds, a few OSRs, I still play AD&D2 as some of my players prefer it, and a fair few others, but most of them just don't feel like they have the meat on their bones.

I'm not going to dismiss people that like other things, and I love reading new rulesets and even just creating characters in multiple systems to see how they feel different, but I can't gather much enthusiasm for creating characters in PF any more.


spinningdice wrote:
Also I'd like to say that it strikes a middle ground, I don't actually like rules-lite systems either, I've tried FATE, Savage Worlds, a few OSRs

So much this. I used to love rules-lite and came from that direction. I was always overwhelmed by your GURPS:es and the D&D "Advanced" line (1e/2e/3e). I haven't found many games that hit the exact niche of 5e:s goldilocks complexity. I kinda think of it as... about 10% between too simple and too complex. (Like, I see it as orders of magnitude sorta. PF feels to me like ten times more complex and something like Searchers of the Unknown feels like a tenth of 5e.) So it's landed in my ideal spot to be in.

Also I'm so impressed with the team; OSR was such a small niche when they started work on Next but they stuck to it and made a wonderful game. (The politics in parts of the OSR community I could gladly leave though. Paizo has built something wonderful and inclusive♥)

301 to 316 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Community / Gaming / D&D / 5th Edition (And Beyond) / Things Pathfinder does better than 5th ed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.