While I will be using Paizo stuff either way, I'm going to take a look at 5th when it comes out.
I pretty much abandoned D&D at the release of 4th Ed like many did. It only took a store-side examination of the content and watching a few game sessions to realize it wasn't for me, which was disappointing give the fact I had played each of the prior 3 (or 4 depending how you look at it) editions with a fair amount of zeal.
Up until now, I've had no time to examine it due to other life obligations. I'm hoping it's something I can play...if it's honestly going to be a throwback to 1st I probably can and will. If it's going to be a tweaked version of 4th, well lets just say I'm glad Paizo and all the old pre-4th material is available in such abundance.
I didn't read all 651 posts :D but I am interested in D&D 5th Edition. The thing is, our group is about to start Rise of the Rune Lords so we will be hung up on that for the next two years or so (judging by the last AP we played). I'd really like to know if 5th ed. is any good. Our GM looked at 4th and didn't like it and got Pathfinder instead. From all I have read on the boards I am glad he didn't. So I am glad for the wait. If 5th is just a continuation of 4th, then I won't get it. If it seems to be a "we made a mistake let's pick up where we left off at 3.5" then I would consider getting it.
As others have probably said, there has been an investment in books. You go into another D&D you will probably be investing in a bunch of other books.
We will see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it seems to be a "we made a mistake let's pick up where we left off at 3.5" then I would consider getting it.
I think you'll be disappointed, then. 5e is not an example of picking up where 3.5 left off. It discards many of the issues the designers originally identified as problematic from 3e/3.5 (some of which were already discarded in 4e) and takes far more cues from 1e and 4e. 5e isn't a continuation of any identifiable edition; it's its own beast.
It does feel from what I have experienced thus far that is fresh and its own thing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a lot of 2e, 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e, and I have a love/hate relationship with all the incarnations of the game. Each edition has things I like/love about them, but they also each feature plenty of things that I find really annoying. I'm hoping that this edition will combine a lot the things I love about each edition and get rid of a bunch of the stuff that drives me crazy. I think it's on its way to doing that, but I'm sure there will be things that annoy me about this edition as well.
One of the huge perks, for me as DM, of this edition is that they've finally gotten rid of the idea of magic items being something that the players are entitled to via a very scripted formula (i.e., wealth by level). This was something that was brought in during 3.5 and continued with 4e that is possibly my biggest pet peeve about those editions (I realize 4e kind of solved the problem with the inherent bonus rules, but still..). I'm really looking forward to a game where magical items are actually a real treasure instead of an expectation/entitlement.
I'm also pretty stoked that the new edition won't be as dependent on minis and tactical battlemaps. I'll still probably use them somewhat since I have so much of it from running 3.5/pathfinder and 4e, but since I generally have to lug it all on public transit to where we game it will be really nice for all that to be more optional.
I really hope they come out with some good adventure content. I feel like it will be fairly easy to convert pathfinder material to 5e, but it would be nice if they had some good stuff of their own. I'm curious to see how the first two big adventures look. I think it's interesting that they contracted them out to Kobold Press to handle. However, I doubt they'll be of huge interest to me since they seem fairly traditional and iconic, and I think the next campaign I run will need to be more offbeat (coming off Age of Worms and Rise of the Runelords).
I tried Pathfinder as a DM and player and did not like it. I will try 5E as a DM and player to see if I do like it.
If it seems to be a "we made a mistake let's pick up where we left off at 3.5" then I would consider getting it.I think you'll be disappointed, then. 5e is not an example of picking up where 3.5 left off. It discards many of the issues the designers originally identified as problematic from 3e/3.5 (some of which were already discarded in 4e) and takes far more cues from 1e and 4e. 5e isn't a continuation of any identifiable edition; it's its own beast.
This is pretty much how I'm feeling about it myself - 1/2e/BECMI with a touch of 3/3.5e to replace THAC0 with something useful, followed by the modern elements (such as character customization) of 4e (but minus the tactical skirmish feel, returning to it being more about playing the role of your characters than moving game pieces around a grid.)
I have a bunch of 4th edition books sitting on my shelves that I no longer use. I have almost all of the hardcover Pathfinder books on the same shelf, and I use those frequently. While they group I play with has expressed interest (branding...it's a powerful thing) I personally want to stick with Pathfinder. I'm still a long ways from mastering the system, and I've been playing it a while. I feel too invested in it.
Oh, and the adventure paths and campaign setting are what really keep me being a supporter, more so than the rules or mechanics.
Will I check out the new D&D starter set? Likely, since it's pretty inexpensive. Will I be buying a whole new set of books for a new edition of D$D? Unlikely.
Edit: Made a typo in that last sentence. Or did I?
I will continue to use Pathfinder campaign setting and adventure materials that I will take from and use as I wish in a 13th Age game. I'm happy that Paizo produced content that was rules / edition free, or at least easy to convert to other systems.
I'm through with tactical grids and rules mechanics that rely on them. I am curious about 5th Edition / D&D Next, but that is because I know nothing about it. I may play it if someone in my gaming group runs it. But right now I'm excited about and invested in 13th Age.
I'm excited for 5e. I'm going to download the PDF today and give it a go. A big reason I avoided 4e was because I had this huge investment in 3.5 material(over 100 books) and didn't want to see them not get used, so I went with Pathfinder. But, every Pathfinder game I was in, the DM's refused to allow 3.5 material. In my current PF game, after some pleading, I'm actually playing an Incarnate from Magic of Incarnum, and I can tell the DM regrets letting me do it. I've asked about other 3.5 options, and he just groans, so, I guess that's that.
So, I figure, to heck with it. My 3.5 investment is dead and gone, so I might as well switch up and reboot. I haven't decided whether to sell my 3.5 books, or just stow them in the garage somewhere.
I'm excited for 5e. I'm going to download the PDF today and give it a go.Is it actually out? Link, please?
I thought the pdf wasn't going up until the Starter set was released on the 15th?
I'm looking at wizards.com now and can't find anything. I know the physical set isn't supposed to come out until later, but I read on their website that the online rules would be out today.
I'm excited for 5e. I'm going to download the PDF today and give it a go.Is it actually out? Link, please?
I thought the pdf wasn't going up until the Starter set was released on the 15th?
It's not up yet, but brick and mortar stores that are a part of the WotC play network (or whatever they call it) are selling the Starter set earlier than regular retailers, so Wizards is releasing the PHB section of Basic today. I'm not entirely sure if this was the plan all along, or just WotC's best effort not to disappoint any fans after promising to have the Basic PDF available for download once the Starter Set is available for purchase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Basic D&D PDF will go "live" when Wizards actually opens for business today in order to have real people on hand in case they are needed for any issues. Since they are located in Seattle, WA, the PDF will probably not be available until 8 or 9 AM Pacific Time.
Personally, I'm just going to wait one more day and download it on the 4th as I expect really heavy traffic on the Wizards site today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited for 5e. I'm going to download the PDF today and give it a go. A big reason I avoided 4e was because I had this huge investment in 3.5 material(over 100 books) and didn't want to see them not get used, so I went with Pathfinder. But, every Pathfinder game I was in, the DM's refused to allow 3.5 material. In my current PF game, after some pleading, I'm actually playing an Incarnate from Magic of Incarnum, and I can tell the DM regrets letting me do it. I've asked about other 3.5 options, and he just groans, so, I guess that's that.
I think it's a shame how many 3.x (and pre-WotC) DMs just say NO to entire books. Even during my 3.0 and 3.5 years, I seemed to be the only DM I knew who just banned or nerfed the individual cheesy options. I still have my massive collection of 3.0 and 3.5 books, which I hardly used before 2008, and not at all after.
4e's "Everything is Core" slogan sounds silly, but it seems to have a positive influence on DMs in this regard -- I'm actually the only 4e DM I know who outright bans anything. 5e sadly seems to be going back to the core stuff vs. optional stuff mentality, possibly with even more emphasis than any prior edition. :(
Back on topic: I didn't participate in the playtest, so can someone explain what they mean by this "bounded accuracy" I keep hearing about?
It was explained here.
The only things I ever restricted, were just things that wouldn't normally exist in a given setting. I.e; No orcs in Ravenloft(without considerable backstory), no driving a pink Cadillac through Greyhawk, etc. Even with restrictive settings like Ravenloft, I still tend to bend and let players play what they want, so long as it jives with the spirit of the game. I don't think I've flat out "banned" anything.
But, I'm a "the more options, the merrier" kind of guy. I greatly enjoy seeing players use options I have never used, or thought of using. It's like watching a demo of something different in person. Back in 3.5, at first I was having trouble wrapping my head around some of the Warlock's abilities, until I saw a player actually play one.
I sort of understand the perspective of DM's who didn't want to allow 3.5 material; they thought it'd be a lot of extra bookkeeping, etc. But really, the bookkeeping is on me, the player. If something seems wonky or out of place, the DM can just say "hey, I'm not happy with the way that feat/feature/spell/etc works with PF now" and I'd happily change it.
I think a lot of DM's just wanted a full on move from one system(3.5) to another(PF) and break away clean. But, my entire reasoning behind even looking at PF in the first place was that it was supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5. Had I known I'd not get to use my collection, I probably would have either just went with 4e to begin with, or gave up the hobby entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally ban anything I don't own on the basis of "if I don't have it at my convenience, I'm not going to be able to review and understand it appropriately enough to run with it."
Other than that, I'm pretty open with what I allow. I do, however, support any GM's effort to ban anything they want as long as they have a rational explanation for it other than "because I said so". I think GMs should have a lot of leeway in establishing what works with the setting since they will be the one dealing with it the most.
I'm looking at wizards.com now and can't find anything. I know the physical set isn't supposed to come out until later, but I read on their website that the online rules would be out today.
The link: D&D Basic Rules
How about banning a book, or possibly many books, based on not wanting to go through each book in a massive library (that you may not even own) and analyze each option in combination with every other possible option?
But then, I tend to like simpler game systems than 3.x turned into.
I believe in every DM's prerogative to ban whatever options s/he wants, for whatever reason. I just find it very disheartening how many DMs ban entire books, and how often their reasons seem to be based on poor judgment and misunderstanding of the rules.
Especially with DMs who have gamer forum accounts, and can run things by a forum hivemind, it seems silly to ban entire books due to unfamiliarity. If a player wants to use an option in a book I don't have, for example, I require 1) a photocopy of the relevant rules text and 2) that the book be brought to every game session. If something seems off before or after I give the player the green light, I can take it to the forum. "Hey all, this option seems too good to be true; am I missing something?" is sure to generate a range of opinions and possible fixes, which I can then institute at my table if I so choose. Or I can say "You know, this one is just too problematic, so you'll have to find something else fun to use."
Granted, I own a lot of books, I enjoy reading about new options, and I like 'talking shop' on the forums, which I realize that not every DM does. So like I said, what to allow and disallow is every DM's own call; I just wish that more DMs would put more effort into understanding new things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am one of those you dislike Josh. The moment we converted to PF, i stopped using 3.5 content.
I don't want it "tainting" my Pathfinder "purity". :D
It's just that most options, especially the books that came out at the end of 3.5 lifetime are ridiculously broken imo.
So I decided to not use any 3.5 content.
I, occasionally, allow something, after I see that it would mean the world to the player, and after looking up the feat/class/spell, and asking my friend (who is an incredible minmaxing powergamer) to break the game with the spell in every theoretical way.
I didn't care that PF was 3.5 compatible. What sold it to me was all the things it fixed and the fact that it wasn't 4E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about banning a book, or possibly many books, based on not wanting to go through each book in a massive library (that you may not even own) and analyze each option in combination with every other possible option?
Exactly so.
I'm glad other people are made of time, I guess. *shrug*
|
I don't know why this topic question was asked here since it's Paizo's messageboards and obviously the vast majority are going to stick with Pathfinder.
That said, if I had to choose between 5E and PF, 5E wins in an instant. I say this with a disclaimer that I only play old school rules games like Swords & Wizardry now.
I've looked over the Basic Rules and while it's not as simple or flexible as say, Swords & Wizardry, it is leaps and bounds preferable to me over PF.
I used to be a big Pathfinder fan. I've been to PaizoCon for the past 4 years and continue to go for the fun of a con, but PF is sort of a 'eh' game for me now. Eventually, the d20 system has just become too cumbersome to deal with. As a DM, it's too much work (to the point I bought HeroLab to create high level NPCs). As a player there is too much to worry about and too much concern over 'builds'. Looking at Paizo's releases since I quit, it's obvious Pathfinder has become just as bloated as 3.5 was.
5E has the same potential to become bloated. It's not a strictly OSR game. But all things considered, the Basic Rules seem like a game I can hand to a newcomer and they'll be able to jump right in, which is a nice benefit too.
The question in my mind is whether this might trigger a Pathfinder 2e design cycle; there is very little in D&D Next that can't be emulated with existing Open Gaming Content.
The question in my mind is whether this might trigger a Pathfinder 2e design cycle; there is very little in D&D Next that can't be emulated with existing Open Gaming Content.
I think you're right about the emulation through the OGL, but I I also think that Paizo has a loyal (like, emotionally invested, level of loyalty) fanbase, and isn't just going to start producing Next/5e material at the drop of hat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am one of those you dislike Josh. The moment we converted to PF, i stopped using 3.5 content.
I don't want it "tainting" my Pathfinder "purity". :D
It's just that most options, especially the books that came out at the end of 3.5 lifetime are ridiculously broken imo.So I decided to not use any 3.5 content.
I, occasionally, allow something, after I see that it would mean the world to the player, and after looking up the feat/class/spell, and asking my friend (who is an incredible minmaxing powergamer) to break the game with the spell in every theoretical way.I didn't care that PF was 3.5 compatible. What sold it to me was all the things it fixed and the fact that it wasn't 4E.
This.
There were so many things cut and pasted into the CRB and so many other things that were updated and changed... they really have tried to fix what they perceived as problems in the 3.x days.
Why would I want to drag over the old problem causers into the new system?
I think a lot of DM's just wanted a full on move from one system(3.5) to another(PF) and break away clean. But, my entire reasoning behind even looking at PF in the first place was that it was supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5. Had I known I'd not get to use my collection, I probably would have either just went with 4e to begin with, or gave up the hobby entirely.
I think compatibility was a priority in the beginning because Paizo had no idea if there version of the game was going to take off, and really the core rulebook was made to support the APs. Personally...I think it would have maybe been better overall for the game if Paizo had tinkered more with the core rules. Some aspects of the game were not really revised to the extent they should have, for fear of scaring off the 3.5 loyalists.
I can sympathize with your concerns, but at this point there are a lot of new players who have never even bought a 3.5 book, and a lot of that material is hard to legally acquire since until recently it's been out of print and unlike pathfinder the SRD mostly doesn't include the majority of rules material.
For what it's worth, if WoTC continues reprinting 3.5/3.0 pdfs, those rules will be more available and the pendulum might swing back to GMs being more open to it's inclusion. I am sure my suggestion isn't novel on the boards, but have you tried to find an online game which either uses the 3.5 rulesets, or is at least permissive about them.
Because the "old problem causers" were (almost) all in core, and you presumably liked them since you are still playing with the same core material?
/shrug
Maybe.
Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...
Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...
Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...
Well presumably, your player would provide the decade-old book for you to okay. And presumably you'd at least give it some consideration, because you want your player to have fun options to play, no? As I mentioned earlier, having a forum account means that you can tap the wisdom of those of us who do have experience with 3.0 and 3.5.
Still your call of course, but would you dismiss an idea out of hand because it doesn't come from PF?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...
Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...
Well presumably, your player would provide the decade-old book for you to okay. And presumably you'd at least give it some consideration, because you want your player to have fun options to play, no? As I mentioned earlier, having a forum account means that you can tap the wisdom of those of us who do have experience with 3.0 and 3.5.
Still your call of course, but would you dismiss an idea out of hand because it doesn't come from PF?
Agreed. I've come across those DMs who don't allow stuff they don't own (and of course say they would allow it if I bought them the book) and what I do is just photo copy the relevant information for them to look through. For myself, I'm not so easily terrified from unknkwn rules. In my 3.5 experience the majority of glaring balance problems comes directly from the PHB and supplements that empower spellcasters. Tome of Battle, at-will Warlocks, psionics, Frenzied Berserkers ALL pale in comparison to the Druid, Cleric, or Wizard in the PHB.
I always find it funny when I read opinions on the "brokeness" of later splats but things like Natural Spell or Gate or the crazy uses people come up with with simple spells to defeat encounters that shouldve taken the whole group to overcome.
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials.
If that's true, and I don't agree that it is, then what is really the point of playing a "martial" if your knowingly going to be outpaced at soe point in the game? That seems tather bleak if you ask me. Personally I like feeling my contributions to the game or quest or adventure should be worth more than saving the wizard a use of his spell slot here and there. Its also a reason why I heavily prefer 4e to 3.5 / PF. But at least with D&D:Next I feel the classes have a balance of a sort and that a Fighter at high levels is holding his own in the game. The wizard still needs his fighter buddy and they both need the cleric and fhe spell slots are too previous to waste on Knock and invisibility so the use of a Rogue is preferrable AND he's killer when Crits come into play.
But hey, if you enjoy your Caster dominance /Caster and Caddies game more power to you. Its not my preferred thing but it works for you and thats what counts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a team game.....your fighter should pleased to be in a team with a guy who can make lightning appear from no where!!
It is a team game.....your fighter should pleased to be in a team with a guy who can make lightning appear from no where!!
And the guy who can shoot lightning should be please to be on a team with a guy who can.............
....Um, take punches in the face so I don't have to? No, I can just cast a spell and turn invisible so the guy can't find me or just fly up in the air so he can't touch me, or cast a spell that makes so many look-a-likes of me that he each one he punches misses the "real" me.
...Oh, I'm pleased that the guy can kill enemies really fast. Wait, that's not right. It takes him many many rounds to chew through all those HPs monsters have. It really is quite easier to just turn them into a slug or glass or incinerate them completely or even just put them to sleep so the guy doesn't have to worry about hitting such a fast moving target.
.....Yes, I'm pleased to be in a group with a guy who super reliable with the plethora of skills......bwhahahaha ok that was a joke.
Gee, I'm not really sure why I'm glad this dude is on my team? Y'know, I bet the Cleric is up for free agency. He can heal, cast offensive buff spells, AND wear armor just like this fighter-y guy. Can we broker a trade??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the point of tabletop RPGs is teamwork, and everyone using their strengths to complement each other. Unless we are playing Paranoia of course.
If I want to shine solo, I'll play a CRPG.That is one of the reasons I don't play 4E at all. Everything is the same, just called differently.
I'm not really sure this post really makes sense with a post you just said in which casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials. If teamwork is required, something I actually agree with, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the characters have some parity and that the strengths of one are more than likely a weakness of another?
And if that's the case then why don't you think 4E achieved this? If you've played 4E then you'd be accustomed to seeing the stark differences in the capabilities of the classes, defined by specific roles they assume. Fighters, for an example, have pretty good crowed control but their damage is rather "meh" when compared to a class like the Rogue or Ranger. A Cleric can't match the Fighter OR Rogue/Ranger for power or damage BUT they desperately need him when monsters of darkness approach or when one of them is gravely injured. The wizard follows as someone who has excellent stopping power of powerful targets AND he can control the areas where battle is joined by area effects. Further, he's great at dealing damage to a group of foes at once. However he's extremely squishy and even a few hits can lay him low, so he needs the Fighter to keep people off his back.
Obviously this is my experience with the game and, for the most part, systems like v3.5 and Pathfinder hold to this model as well for a time. However beginning around 7th level and progressing into the mid- and late-tiered games both v3.5 and Pathfinder put HUGE emphasis on the need for magical aid and assistance at those levels. A party without the use of magic is nearly doomed to fail. However the revers isn't necessarily the truth for earlier levels of the game. A party consisting of a Beguiler (or even an Illusionist mage), Cleric, Druid, and Wizard will easily excel at 1st level and I'd dare say pretty much ROFLstomp most challenges of equal level far into the latter stages of the game.
A group consisting of a Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Barbarian will have an easy time in the first few levels, probably excelling in combat where our spellcaster party will have to take time and recoup their spells more often. But as the monsters they face gain a significant increase in power (to adjust for the assumption of magic) these characters face a fare greater likely hood of all dying due to a lack of aid.
Case in point, the idea of Teamwork is one that is collectively shared, however is has little bearing of the parity of characters that compose a team or party. Each characters should have some strengths to lend the group and sometimes those strengths are what might carry the whole group through an ordeal. However from my experiences it often falls to the caster to fulfill this roll more often than not at the mid- to later-stages of both v3.5 and Pathfinder.
It is a team game.....your fighter should pleased to be in a team with a guy who can make lightning appear from no where!!And the guy who can shoot lightning should be please to be on a team with a guy who can.............
....Um, take punches in the face so I don't have to? No, I can just cast a spell and turn invisible so the guy can't find me or just fly up in the air so he can't touch me, or cast a spell that makes so many look-a-likes of me that he each one he punches misses the "real" me.
...Oh, I'm pleased that the guy can kill enemies really fast. Wait, that's not right. It takes him many many rounds to chew through all those HPs monsters have. It really is quite easier to just turn them into a slug or glass or incinerate them completely or even just put them to sleep so the guy doesn't have to worry about hitting such a fast moving target.
.....Yes, I'm pleased to be in a group with a guy who super reliable with the plethora of skills......bwhahahaha ok that was a joke.
Gee, I'm not really sure why I'm glad this dude is on my team? Y'know, I bet the Cleric is up for free agency. He can heal, cast offensive buff spells, AND wear armor just like this fighter-y guy. Can we broker a trade??
Well I know one thing I'm very pleased about
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials.
Then caster enemies need to have a higher challenge rating than martial enemies. Wizards and Fighters can be enemies to fight as well as party members.
Thats why they need to be balanced. A level 1 fighter should be as strong as a level 1 wizard, the same way a level 20 fighter should be as much of a threat as a level 20 wizard. Otherwise, they need to give each separate class its own way to determine challenge rating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials.
That is one of the reasons I don't play 4E at all. Everything is the same, just called differently.
And this thread was doing so well. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the point of tabletop RPGs is teamwork, and everyone using their strengths to complement each other. Unless we are playing Paranoia of course.
If I want to shine solo, I'll play a CRPG.That is one of the reasons I don't play 4E at all. Everything is the same, just called differently.
Reporting as ordered!
To answer the original question:
Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?
Technically, no. I never switched to Pathfinder to begin with. IF you expand the question to include 3.X, then my answer is "Most likely."
While 5e does have its own problems (but really, what rules set doesn't?), I can see enough changes to know that 5e will probably become by fantasy RPG system of choice.
