znancekivell's page

15 pt-buy mandates optimization to survive. It chokes out character variety.

Bolded for emphasis, but THAT, so very very much that. They all end up cookie cutter classes and it's repetitive.

Agreed mates!

I haven't experienced any truly negative problems with 5E, in fact I keep finding that if I investigate the PHB or DMG closer I can usually find what I'm looking for.

I initially disliked the lack of Skill options for Players, as I am a big believer that a Characters Skills help define the actual character, until I started reading in the DMG about all the customization options you could alter. As I am the GM in most cases, this information was incredibly valuable too me. You can customize a Class nearly any way you can think of.

Think that a Bard being proficient with three musical instruments is overkill? Switch two of them out for different tool proficiencies or even languages. Or hell, all three of them if you aren't playing a musical-themed Bard. You could take Thieves Tools, Herbalism Kit and Vehicles (Land) in order to represent a roaming Survivor style character.

Want a Fighter with more Skill selections? Trade in one of your other Proficiencies, say Heavy Armor, in exchange for an extra skill or two. Now you can both Intimidate someone and list off the genealogical History of every dwarven artifact ever produced. In addition to having smooth Stealth moves that lets you set up tactical ambush points with your party Rogue.

The genius of 5E lies in that the game expects the Player's and Game Master's to work together and help create the character and concept you want. The basic rules in the PHB only serve as a starting point, which you can alter in order to best represent what you are trying to accomplish. This is quite different from other RPG's, yes like Pathfinder, which want you to work with the Game Master true, but only within the confines of the pre-established rules set. You are still limited exclusively to what any new Archetype or Variant you are allowed to use.

In this regards I feel that 5E actually allows for greater customization than Pathfinder. Quantity of Selection does not trump Quality of Selection in my view, which is where 5E succeeds. I admit that it took my 3.5/Pathfinder mindset some time to adjust to this new 5E mindset, but once I was in the door I was amazed at how simple the whole system is while still allowing for deep customization options.

I would personally enjoy seeing a Pathfinder 2.0.

Though I've spent many years with Paizo (and even more money!) as of late I find myself drawn to systems of play with less clutter, simplified rules systems and overall a more inclusive feel with room to edit and update with little effort or rocket science mathematics. While I love the brand of Pathfinder (Iconics, World, History, etc.) I feel that the 3.5 System is far too outdated, convoluted and feels entirely artificial when compared to more streamlined systems, yes, like Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition.

I would be interested to test out Pathfinder built on a shiny new chassis with an upgraded engine and mileage to spare.

Looking forward to getting my hands on this. Between Ultimate Psionics and Occult Adventures my love of psychic-themed characters and classes will be fulfilled. +1

I'm a bit torn to be honest. Nearly all of my experience with RPG's comes from the seat of the Game Master, I rarely engage as a Player so understand that my statements come from this perspective.

On the one hand I really liked a lot of aspects of D&D 4E that I found to be a breathe of fresh air (no class-based BAB, no random Health, simplified skill sets, etc) and on the other hand things I did not like (no basic multi-attacks, heavy reliance on two or three at-will powers, uneven distribution of powers and too few of them to boot, etc) but one thing I did like about 4E was how simple it was to pick up and play. This is one aspect of Pathfinder that I have felt has always held the system back.

While Pathfinder has great modularity it suffers from an over reliance on rules and crunch to succeed, often dragging out scenarios that should only take moments to minutes and minutes while everyone looks up the exact rule, advantage, power, trait or ability. Simply put; too much for too little. Which, don't get me wrong, means that I dislike Pathfinder. I switched over from 4E to Pathfinder because I felt that WotC just wasn't using all they could when it came to 4E, either being too simple at times or overly complicated and rigid for no reason.

Pathfinder was my answer to that problem. It has it's faults like any system made by mortal hands, but I liked it and modified what I didn't like. Houserules became the standard fare around the game table. That was many years ago though and as I find my free time becomes less and less the more I manage my time between work, family, friends and a spouse, the more I look for a system that gives me something closer to what I want, so I don't have to spend a long time "fixing" the parts I don't like.

I still buy all the "core" Pathfinder books, 'cause you never know when a rainy day might come along, but after looking at some of the beta testing and pre-production on D&D Next I admit I am intrigued. Next comes off as a cross between the SAGA system of Star Wars, D&D 3.5/4E and fresh ideas with a general purpose of keeping everything simple and fast-paced with the option to include more crunch with nothing more than simple improvisation. I won't know for sure how well I feel the system holds up until I try it out for real at the table, but I will try it.

I enjoy Pathfinder for what It is, and I'll continue to buy the core books to add to my collection. I'm still going to try out Next though, I want something less rulesies and more fast-paced role-playing goodness. Maybe I just sound like a hypocrite or a whiner, I don't know and I don't care. I want to bake my cake and eat it too. Instant recipe-like.