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


4th Edition

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,528 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>

I finally get the spell slots system, I think it will be fine, as long as no one tries to explain to me how it works "in game"

But it makes me wonder why they didn't apply the same concept to Monks, with KI "Slots" and let them be filled with lower level abilities that scale up when a higher Ki Slot is used


To answer the OP, I'm going to begin running the Starter Set this weekend. If it plays at the table as good as it looks on paper, I will definitely be switching. Flat power curve? A billion buffs/debuffs thrown out the window? Streamlined but still simple character creation? So far I'm loving it. :)

-The Gneech


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Terquem wrote:

Have you ever run a game set in an above ground ruin? With partial walls about three feet high, you know you describe this to the players and they are like, "meh, okay, so put the grid down and let's fight the monsters," right?

So last weekend I ran an off the cuff improvised 5e game for two players, playing a Bard (Charlatan) and a Wizard (Hermit)and these two fellows were attacked by grindylows in a watery ruin. A couple of the grindylows scrambled up the ruined wall and attacked the characters with spears from an elevated position.

What happened next warmed my aging heart. The players started asking specific questions about the walls, where they were broken, crumbling, how they could get up on the walls and get in on that advantage nonsense. Having this new mechanic, brought these players into the game in ways that Pathfinder never did (and they both are veteran Pathfinder players)

I'm not sure where I related this before, but yeah, same thing happening here. In stead of:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: I Sneak down...got a 19. Did I do it?

...in stead of that, I now have this...:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: What's around me? Are there piles of refuse? Garbage, crates, that kind of thing? I'll take some soot and cover my face, arms, and shiny metal bits on my armor and stuff...weapon blade, belt buckle, etc. Is there something I can carry in front of me...like maybe an old potato sack?

DM: Yes, lots of shadows and refuse in the ally. You paint yourself up and hold the potato sack in front of you as you creep forward...roll a Stealth with Advantage. :D

Basically, my players are FAR more engaged in their characters surroundings and what is actually going on in the imagination realm. They are much less involved in flipping through umpteen books to try and find "bonuses" to add together.

After our first month and a half of 5e...I can honestly say we will never be going back to Pathfinder (or any "d20" style game, really). Not that we were ever big fans of them, but 5e sealed the coffin of d20-style games for us.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


5 people marked this as a favorite.
pming wrote:

Hiya.

Terquem wrote:

Have you ever run a game set in an above ground ruin? With partial walls about three feet high, you know you describe this to the players and they are like, "meh, okay, so put the grid down and let's fight the monsters," right?

So last weekend I ran an off the cuff improvised 5e game for two players, playing a Bard (Charlatan) and a Wizard (Hermit)and these two fellows were attacked by grindylows in a watery ruin. A couple of the grindylows scrambled up the ruined wall and attacked the characters with spears from an elevated position.

What happened next warmed my aging heart. The players started asking specific questions about the walls, where they were broken, crumbling, how they could get up on the walls and get in on that advantage nonsense. Having this new mechanic, brought these players into the game in ways that Pathfinder never did (and they both are veteran Pathfinder players)

I'm not sure where I related this before, but yeah, same thing happening here. In stead of:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: I Sneak down...got a 19. Did I do it?

...in stead of that, I now have this...:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: What's around me? Are there piles of refuse? Garbage, crates, that kind of thing? I'll take some soot and cover my face, arms, and shiny metal bits on my armor and stuff...weapon blade, belt buckle, etc. Is there something I can carry in front of me...like maybe an old potato sack?

DM: Yes, lots of shadows and refuse in the ally. You paint yourself up and hold the potato sack in front of you as you creep forward...roll a Stealth with...

Interesting. I have been running 3.5 for a long time and my players have always looked at their surroundings for advantages to assist in what they are doing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Dennis Harry wrote:
Interesting. I have been running 3.5 for a long time and my players have always looked at their surroundings for advantages to assist in what they are doing.

That's the case with me too, but I will acknowledge that the presentation of a game, its tone, and other elements around it can profoundly change a player's orientation toward the game - and not always in rational ways.

Some groups found that 3e's focus on rules caused their players to do so as well - even myopically. Some groups found that 4e's focus on powers turned the game into a skirmish board game of shuffling power cards. And in both cases, some groups found the structure of those games liberating from problems they found with previous editions (that many other players never even had).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Some groups found that 3e's focus on rules caused their players to do so as well - even myopically. Some groups found that 4e's focus on powers turned the game into a skirmish board game of shuffling power cards. And in both cases, some groups found the structure of those games liberating from problems they found with previous editions (that many other players never even had).

I always found an easy solution to that with 3e or PF and even the little bit of 4e I played. Don't focus on the rules during actual play. Learn what needs to be learned beforehand and take good notes; let the actual game focus on the roleplaying and story. It does require a bit of out of game reading for everyone, but in the end it's no worse than the approach 5e took of showing up trusting the DM to be able to give good descriptions and concise answers just to have a basic idea of what you can do. Each approach has its strengths and its weaknesses.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pming wrote:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: What's around me? Are there piles of refuse? Garbage, crates, that kind of thing? I'll take some soot and cover my face, arms, and shiny metal bits on my armor and stuff...weapon blade, belt buckle, etc. Is there something I can carry in front of me...like maybe an old potato sack?

DM: Yes, lots of shadows and refuse in the ally. You paint yourself up and hold the potato sack in front of you as you creep forward...roll a Stealth with Advantage.

As someone who's always aimed to play this way in every edition...I don't see how the new rules promote this.

What am I missing?

Granted, I've only read the Starter set, not the online rules or PHB, but what I've read would actually discourage this kind of descriptive approach.
Players make more effort with descriptions, when they believe they will be rewarded for doing so (a +1 here, a +1 there, the distraction allows for a stealth roll in the first place).
The rules I've seen, there's no reward for going the extra yard.
Any advantage beyond one, unopposed advantage is a waste of effort.
You can have advantage for the sack. OR the soot. OR the shadows. OR the slow approach. OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.
You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?


Snorter wrote:

OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.

You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

Wait. You get advantage for having a trained skill?

Did I miss something that huge? I've only got the Basic document, but I don't see it.

Trained just gives you your proficiency bonus as far as I can tell.

At 9th level the basic Rogue archetype Thief gives you advantage on Stealth at half speed, which really suggests to me that you don't always have it.


I shall stick with Pathfinder for all my fantasy needs. I like the gods, I like the classes, I like the races, I like Golarion.

For my modern/near future needs, I'm developing my own system based heavily on Star Wars Saga Edition. Likewise, SWSE is the other rpg love of my life and I will continue to run it when I please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

Snorter wrote:


As someone who's always aimed to play this way in every edition...I don't see how the new rules promote this.
What am I missing?

Granted, I've only read the Starter set, not the online rules or PHB, but what I've read would actually discourage this kind of descriptive approach.
Players make more effort with descriptions, when they believe they will be rewarded for doing so (a +1 here, a +1 there, the distraction allows for a stealth roll in the first place).
The rules I've seen, there's no reward for going the extra yard.
Any advantage beyond one, unopposed advantage is a waste of effort.
You can have advantage for the sack. OR the soot. OR the shadows. OR the slow approach. OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.
You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

I think you're looking at it as a binary thing. It isn't. The thrust of 5e's rule set hinges squarely on the DM's adjudication role in the game. All through the rules are little blurbs mentioning "talk to your DM", "ask your DM if he's using this", "your DM may do something else", etc. This kind of "loosey-goosey" wording isn't for everybody; people who want to see absolutes in an RPG will likely find 5e's general tone undesirable. So it's not that you can have advantage for the sack, OR the soot, OR the shadows, etc. The DM takes the whole thing, not trying to break it down into "bonuses", and then decides if the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. If he does, he may give Advantage...if he doesn't, then you don't get Advantage. He may opt for something in between...not giving Advantage, but giving you a +1 or maybe +2 on your roll. It's all about the current in-game situation and what "feels right for everybody". As I said...loosey-goosey.

As for the Rogue or Ranger "automatically get 1 instance"...you may get a bonus too. You can have both, but again, it's up to the DM to adjudicate this kind of thing.

All that said...one thing I for certain; the 5e rules play quite different from what they read. I, and my group, were all completely surprised that we actually liked 5e. We all have between 15 and 34 years of RPG experience each, and so we're pretty good at reading a rule book and noticing things we won't likely enjoy or think will "work" for us. We were reluctant at 5e. But, me and two players had about half-hour to kill before the other players arrived for our normal game, so I whipped out the Starter Set, they chose a pre-gen (halfling rogue and human fighter (archer)), and they found themselves on the Triboar Trail on their way to Phandalin. We only played for about 20 minutes. But in that 20 minutes, the game's ease of play and quickness of resolution made a *big* impression on us. Nobody was 'worried' about getting a rule wrong. Nobody was concerned about how something was specifically worded. The focus was on the intent of the rule, not the letter of it. All in all, the next session we played 5e as a full group. We've been playing it every weekend since. To us, 5e flows naturally and frees up everyones mind to focus on the campaign setting, the story, the role-playing, and all that other stuff without constantly thinking of math and specifically worded bonuses. In that sense it has lead to much more player involvement and description of action.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point I don't think I will be switching to 5e.

I'm already in for 3 books via the Necromancer Games kickstarter for 5e, but that may be the extent of it. Too many concerns with the system, primarily it seems too easy (challenge wise) and they still have some 3e/4e legacy components that do not mesh with my play expectations.

I do like bounded accuracy, but I think they could have dropped the feat system (as written for 5e, incredibly generous), the level stat advancement and a slew of other smaller things (at-will cantrips, overnight healing, short rest healing, no long term effects).

Seems like too many things to change/house rule to make it run like 1e and 2e when instead I can just run 1e or 2e.

Again, initially it had promise for me, but the more I see newer content the more I think it isn't going to work (for me). The DMG is when I make the final decision on this, but looking at what they have put out so far in current content makes me think that WotC is incapable of making a 1e or 2e style game using their new rule set as a basis. I just don't think the design philosophy is in their DNA (never was) and their foundation (Basic and PHB rules) are too far off the mark to make it happen.

I will wait to see what the 5e DMG holds, it may change my decision on this - but looking at everything else released so far: all the monster stats, inflated hp across the board (no need for that) inflated outgoing damage (no need for that) and some 4e-philosophy (no lasting effects/low danger/high survivability mechanics) makes me think this isn't going to be the system for me.

So more than likely I may poach some of better ideas from 5e and incorporate them into a variation of 2e and just revise that system and just be content to run a "dead game" system.

No matter what though - I'm done with PF/3rd ed based systems. I'd sooner quit gaming than have to go back to running anything d20 based.


thejeff wrote:
Snorter wrote:

OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.

You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

Wait. You get advantage for having a trained skill?

Did I miss something that huge? I've only got the Basic document, but I don't see it.

Trained just gives you your proficiency bonus as far as I can tell.

At 9th level the basic Rogue archetype Thief gives you advantage on Stealth at half speed, which really suggests to me that you don't always have it.

That's right, Jeff, you get proficiency in trained skills, not advantage. Inspiration (page 35 Basic) goes into the "RP your way to Advantage" approach, but given that Inspiration doesn't stack, I've found it a better ideal to bankroll inspiration and try to gain Advantage situationally.


thejeff wrote:
Snorter wrote:

OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.

You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

Wait. You get advantage for having a trained skill?

Did I miss something that huge? I've only got the Basic document, but I don't see it.

Trained just gives you your proficiency bonus as far as I can tell.

At 9th level the basic Rogue archetype Thief gives you advantage on Stealth at half speed, which really suggests to me that you don't always have it.

It's not the trained skill that gave advantage in this case, it's the extra effort the player put into using it. Rather than just doing the baseline "creep forward quietly," the player used the environment to enhance their chance of success. Hence, advantage.

-The Gneech


Auxmaulous wrote:
I do like bounded accuracy, but I think they could have dropped the feat system (as written for 5e, incredibly generous), the level stat advancement and a slew of other smaller things (at-will cantrips, overnight healing, short rest healing, no long term effects).

The Feat system is really just an option so you can hack that off completely as a DM. I see what you mean though, having to make too many changes to make it run the way you want makes no sense when previous iterations of the game have rules which you prefer.

I am sticking with 3.5 as I DO like all of the options and the number crunching. My game is RP heavy, 50% or more of game play, so I feel my campaigns already have the "feel" that 5E is looking for.

I will not run excessive epic level campaigns any longer though, they are too much work for me nowadays.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Probably not. My party and I have invested a lot in the system and like what its been doing for us. That being said I said the same stuff when first exposed to pf so who knows.

What will really say one way or the other is how much exploration, horror, and cthulhian monster stuff ends up creeping into 5th over the next 6 months.


John Robey wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Snorter wrote:

OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.

You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

Wait. You get advantage for having a trained skill?

Did I miss something that huge? I've only got the Basic document, but I don't see it.

Trained just gives you your proficiency bonus as far as I can tell.

At 9th level the basic Rogue archetype Thief gives you advantage on Stealth at half speed, which really suggests to me that you don't always have it.

It's not the trained skill that gave advantage in this case, it's the extra effort the player put into using it. Rather than just doing the baseline "creep forward quietly," the player used the environment to enhance their chance of success. Hence, advantage.

That's what I'd thought, but Snorter was saying you got it just for being trained in a skill, so the whole situational approach was pointless.

Sovereign Court

Anybody have comments on the released adventure material so far? This is something that could be appealing or not for me. My group wont even try 5E because they are in love with Paizo APs and chargen options. 5E cant compete at this stage for them, but I'm hoping in the future to get a chance to get my group to try it out.


Pan wrote:
Anybody have comments on the released adventure material so far? This is something that could be appealing or not for me. My group wont even try 5E because they are in love with Paizo APs and chargen options. 5E cant compete at this stage for them, but I'm hoping in the future to get a chance to get my group to try it out.

Having read through Lost Mines of Phandelver and Hoard of the Dragon Queen, I found them both mediocre. Pretty much like most WotC 4E adventures: Certainly usable, but nothing special. Definitely not nearly as good as the rules themselves.

That said, I know the rules were a moving target, especially for Hoard. I have higher hopes for the post-Tyranny of Dragons material.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Snorter wrote:
pming wrote:

DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.

Player: What's around me? Are there piles of refuse? Garbage, crates, that kind of thing? I'll take some soot and cover my face, arms, and shiny metal bits on my armor and stuff...weapon blade, belt buckle, etc. Is there something I can carry in front of me...like maybe an old potato sack?

DM: Yes, lots of shadows and refuse in the ally. You paint yourself up and hold the potato sack in front of you as you creep forward...roll a Stealth with Advantage.

As someone who's always aimed to play this way in every edition...I don't see how the new rules promote this.

What am I missing?

Granted, I've only read the Starter set, not the online rules or PHB, but what I've read would actually discourage this kind of descriptive approach.
Players make more effort with descriptions, when they believe they will be rewarded for doing so (a +1 here, a +1 there, the distraction allows for a stealth roll in the first place).
The rules I've seen, there's no reward for going the extra yard.
Any advantage beyond one, unopposed advantage is a waste of effort.
You can have advantage for the sack. OR the soot. OR the shadows. OR the slow approach. OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.
You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

I don't know that you're missing anything. It's probably just a play style thing (or perhaps gaming style would be a better term).

For me, if there are codified rules for something, I look to the list of modifiers and sum them up, seeing which ones I can possibly squeeze in. If its a matter of DM judgement, I put effort into describing what I'm doing (maybe trying to persuade the DM that it should work?)

As such, when I play a simple rule set I'm more descriptive than when I play a more complicated one. I think that says as much about the way I play as about the rules though - I think the experience at the table is a mix of both the objective rules and the subjective utilisation of such.

FWIW, I've seen many suggest the house rule that whichever of advantage or disadvantage "wins out" applies - rather than 5-1 resulting in no effect. It's too early to know whether that's a good idea (or whether it will become "player mandated errata" - like not tracking encumbrance at level twenty in 3.5). It would make a difference to a group who are motivated to describe more if they get mechanical benefit.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Pan wrote:
Anybody have comments on the released adventure material so far? This is something that could be appealing or not for me. My group wont even try 5E because they are in love with Paizo APs and chargen options. 5E cant compete at this stage for them, but I'm hoping in the future to get a chance to get my group to try it out.

I liked Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Granted I haven't run it yet, so I can't really speak to how it plays. I liked reading it though - it felt to me like it would be a fun, "traditional" adventure.

It certainly read well - I love paizo APs, but there are a lot of statistics sprinkled through the pages. The concise (or absent, but referenced) stat blocks in HotDG were refreshing.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

In re the mechanical bonus for spreading the soot on the face and such: you could grant the player advantage, or you could grant them inspiration and advantage, or you could force them to make a Stealth check to see if it works, or you could say it doesn't do anything, or you could say it imposes disadvantage because there aren't many people in town walking around covered in soot.

The point is that the two most important bonuses in the game (advantage and inspiration, obv) can only be granted to a player at the DM's discretion. The player's number one objective becomes the acquisition of advantage/inspiration. Advantage comes from clever play in the moment, and inspiration comes from particularly good roleplaying. Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.


Ffordesoon wrote:

In re the mechanical bonus for spreading the soot on the face and such: you could grant the player advantage, or you could grant them inspiration and advantage, or you could force them to make a Stealth check to see if it works, or you could say it doesn't do anything, or you could say it imposes disadvantage because there aren't many people in town walking around covered in soot.

The point is that the two most important bonuses in the game (advantage and inspiration, obv) can only be granted to a player at the DM's discretion. The player's number one objective becomes the acquisition of advantage/inspiration. Advantage comes from clever play in the moment, and inspiration comes from particularly good roleplaying. Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.

That's very well put!


Bill Dunn wrote:
Dennis Harry wrote:
Interesting. I have been running 3.5 for a long time and my players have always looked at their surroundings for advantages to assist in what they are doing.

That's the case with me too, but I will acknowledge that the presentation of a game, its tone, and other elements around it can profoundly change a player's orientation toward the game - and not always in rational ways.

Some groups found that 3e's focus on rules caused their players to do so as well - even myopically. Some groups found that 4e's focus on powers turned the game into a skirmish board game of shuffling power cards. And in both cases, some groups found the structure of those games liberating from problems they found with previous editions (that many other players never even had).

If the group/members of a group are new, sometimes more "out of the box" thinking can be stymied, as sometimes people don't want to deal with figuring out what rule they feel they should use, or deal with grappling, etc. It's faster to just run up and hit the guy with your sword is the logic.

So I can see the logic of 5E encouraging players to think up new tactics and strategies, if the rules for things are less consolidated.


Ffordesoon wrote:

In re the mechanical bonus for spreading the soot on the face and such: you could grant the player advantage, or you could grant them inspiration and advantage, or you could force them to make a Stealth check to see if it works, or you could say it doesn't do anything, or you could say it imposes disadvantage because there aren't many people in town walking around covered in soot.

The point is that the two most important bonuses in the game (advantage and inspiration, obv) can only be granted to a player at the DM's discretion. The player's number one objective becomes the acquisition of advantage/inspiration. Advantage comes from clever play in the moment, and inspiration comes from particularly good roleplaying. Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.

you get a +5 for this. This! is what will bring this game back into my life, social gaming as it was meant to be


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The more I see it, the more it highlights the original problems I had from the earlier editions. Seemingly strict and unbendable rules for magic (unless of course the DM decides otherwise, a not uncommon occurrence), but everything else is basically in a free for all reliant entirely on the DM and the player's individual ability (vs the character's ability) for anything more than basic attacks. As a player who doesn't have the luxury of playing in the same group on a regular basis all the time, I find that level of difference very problematic; with the right group it can be fine and even great, but with the wrong group, it's not worth bothering with and can end up being far worse than anything 3rd edition could create. 4E ultimately had the same issues; giving DMs back their power comes at the cost of losing most of the systems portability.

I'd love to find a middle ground where players can have consistency while DMs still retain a certain amount of control, but at this point I doubt I'm going to find that in the D&D brand. There are simply too many assumptions and expectations built into D&D that make it highly unlikely that any company could develop a system that did that without alienating large chunks of their audience.


I'm not sure I understand your point. Surely a system that's easier to teach and to run is more portable, not less?


Ffordesoon wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Surely a system that's easier to teach and to run is more portable, not less?

Not necessarily. Easier to introduce to new people, but the more it is reliant on GM choices the more assumption clashes there will be when playing with different people who are already familiar with the system.

I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue with 5th as sunshadow21 does, but it's at least theoretically an issue.


thejeff wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Surely a system that's easier to teach and to run is more portable, not less?

Not necessarily. Easier to introduce to new people, but the more it is reliant on GM choices the more assumption clashes there will be when playing with different people who are already familiar with the system.

I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue with 5th as sunshadow21 does, but it's at least theoretically an issue.

Isn't that technically every version of D&D (Pathfinder included)? Same with many other systems (I can only assume on that). No 2 DMs will allow the same things, and even those that do, there is no guarantee that it hasn't been changed (house rules). Saying there's too much reliance on the DM's choices in one system and is the reason to not play it, seems rather absurd.

But as has been said many many times in this thread and many others, it is OK if a system isn't for you. You don't like a system, there's nothing wrong with that. Once you figure out that much, it would probably be best to move on.


Adjule wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Surely a system that's easier to teach and to run is more portable, not less?

Not necessarily. Easier to introduce to new people, but the more it is reliant on GM choices the more assumption clashes there will be when playing with different people who are already familiar with the system.

I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue with 5th as sunshadow21 does, but it's at least theoretically an issue.

Isn't that technically every version of D&D (Pathfinder included)? Same with many other systems (I can only assume on that). No 2 DMs will allow the same things, and even those that do, there is no guarantee that it hasn't been changed (house rules). Saying there's too much reliance on the DM's choices in one system and is the reason to not play it, seems rather absurd.

But as has been said many many times in this thread and many others, it is OK if a system isn't for you. You don't like a system, there's nothing wrong with that. Once you figure out that much, it would probably be best to move on.

True. All systems will have some variation and any GM can add houserules, but that doesn't mean there's no difference in how much variation is common.

Mind you, I don't think this is a big deal. Just trying to clarify what was meant.

The Exchange

Pan wrote:
Anybody have comments on the released adventure material so far? This is something that could be appealing or not for me. My group wont even try 5E because they are in love with Paizo APs and chargen options. 5E cant compete at this stage for them, but I'm hoping in the future to get a chance to get my group to try it out.

I'm running hoard of the dragon queen. It was outsourced to Kobold Press to write, so it's not a WotC adventure, so to speak.

While the plot is tried and true, and probably a bit tired if you've run much DnD stuff in the last few years, it still works.

There are many more open approaches to how each encounter and chapter can be handled. The approach is not as directly linked to "kill everything" as Pathfinder is.

Combat is brutal and short. Getting surprise can end encounters before the other party gets to act. Groups that gain advantage when they pack attack can take PCs down in seconds. It really made my players rethink their pathfinder style tactics completely.

The only parts I found a bit weaker in the adventure was the inspiration for why the party does each part. They jarred with me a little as DM, but the party I'm running it for have no issues at all.

I wrote a review of it on this site if you want to read it.

Now to a second point. If you don't like the modules WotC are sanctioning, I've found converting the Paizo APs to be exceedingly easy. Assuming I've got monster stats I can substitute in. With more experience as DM, I'll be able to get this done even easier, as I'll have a better feel for how Pathfinder encounter design gels with 5e encounter design. If it turns out that the numbers per encounter are similar, then the work to convert is even easier.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ffordesoon wrote:
Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.

Or, as I have rather cynically phrased it a few times lately: 3.x/Pathfinder is a character generation system with an ancillary RPG haphazardly duct-taped onto it at the last minute.


Kthulhu wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:
Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.
Or, as I have rather cynically phrased it a few times lately: 3.x/Pathfinder is a character generation system with an ancillary RPG haphazardly duct-taped onto it at the last minute.

After 3 months of playing 5e every weekend my personal experiences are that your statement, while "harsh", is fairly accurate!


Adjule wrote:
But as has been said many many times in this thread and many others, it is OK if a system isn't for you. You don't like a system, there's nothing wrong with that. Once you figure out that much, it would probably be best to move on.

The problem is that WotC, and to a certain extent the entire industry, can't afford that response on the same scale it occurred with 4E, and that's what they are going to have if the DMG doesn't provide the promised modularity and/or they fall flat on continued support, a very real possibility right now. As someone who wants to see the entire industry thrive regardless of the system I use, I'm just not seeing what I expect to be seeing from an industry leader. Their inability to even roughly schedule much of anything beyond the DMG worries me, because it makes clear they really have no idea of what they want to do with this going forward, making it far easier to make either very bad impulse decisions or, a scenario possibly even more dangerous, to make no real decisions at all. It shouldn't be that difficult to at least plan out a rough idea of what they want to do each quarter to the point they can make some kind of press release or announcement.

If Paizo and PF or one of the other alternate systems out there was in a stronger position to step up to the role of industry leader (a role I don't think Paizo is quite ready for just yet), I would be able to take your statement without question and would do so willingly; for now, though, I don't have that option. All I can do is hope that WotC comes through on the DMG and some kind of steady release schedule for something beyond adventures going forward to keep 5E and the brand from sinking at least long enough for someone else to fully be able to take their place, because WotC is not gong to hold onto that position with what I've seen so far. It's not bad, but it's not particularly great either. Take off the brand name and most people wouldn't pay that much attention to it. Without someone else in a position to easily step up and lead the industry, that is a real problem and one that won't go away by telling people to simply move on.


Have you played 5e yet, sunshadow? Honest question.


Kthulhu wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:
Build optimization confers the greatest chance of success in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. To have the greatest chance of success in 5e, you have to play the game well at the table. That's the big difference between 3e and 5e.
Or, as I have rather cynically phrased it a few times lately: 3.x/Pathfinder is a character generation system with an ancillary RPG haphazardly duct-taped onto it at the last minute.

It can be if you let it play that way. It doesn't have to be, though. I'm already seeing some change in how it is approached just by the way that Paizo presents it. Character generation will always be a big part of it, that much is true; that's not a bad thing if it's kept in balance with and incorporated into the actual campaign story.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Adjule wrote:
But as has been said many many times in this thread and many others, it is OK if a system isn't for you. You don't like a system, there's nothing wrong with that. Once you figure out that much, it would probably be best to move on.

The problem is that WotC, and to a certain extent the entire industry, can't afford that response on the same scale it occurred with 4E, and that's what they are going to have if the DMG doesn't provide the promised modularity and/or they fall flat on continued support, a very real possibility right now. As someone who wants to see the entire industry thrive regardless of the system I use, I'm just not seeing what I expect to be seeing from an industry leader. Their inability to even roughly schedule much of anything beyond the DMG worries me, because it makes clear they really have no idea of what they want to do with this going forward, making it far easier to make either very bad impulse decisions or, a scenario possibly even more dangerous, to make no real decisions at all. It shouldn't be that difficult to at least plan out a rough idea of what they want to do each quarter to the point they can make some kind of press release or announcement.

If Paizo and PF or one of the other alternate systems out there was in a stronger position to step up to the role of industry leader (a role I don't think Paizo is quite ready for just yet), I would be able to take your statement without question and would do so willingly; for now, though, I don't have that option. All I can do is hope that WotC comes through on the DMG and some kind of steady release schedule for something beyond adventures going forward to keep 5E and the brand from sinking at least long enough for someone else to fully be able to take their place, because WotC is not gong to hold onto that position with what I've seen so far. It's not bad, but it's not particularly great either. Take off the brand name and most people wouldn't pay that much attention to it. Without someone else in a...

Last I saw, Pathfinder was the "industry leader", and regularly beat out D&D as the top selling rpg for quite a bit of 4th edition's life cycle. So, Paizo not being ready for something they have been for the last few years strikes me as off. 5th edition is selling more than Pathfinder because it is new. After the December, when the DMG is finally out (releases in start of December since it was delayed), we may see a battle between the 2 for #1.

As for them not having a release schedule after the DMG, I don't know what to say. I am not an employee of WotC. But they are apparently going more for quality over quantity, which makes me feel that way since they delayed the DMG because they wanted to polish it up better. Is that true? No idea. They may start giving release ideas after they finish with the DMG.

Giving release dates, and then having to push them back, has proven to create rage directed at the company for not giving something they "promised" when they "promised".


Ffordesoon wrote:
Have you played 5e yet, sunshadow? Honest question.

Haven't had a chance, and frankly, will be very, very picky about the group I choose to do so with. It has a lot of potential to be really good with the right group, and I will wait for the right group to try it; no point in doing anything else. I just don't believe that WotC can afford for everyone to take that approach or worse, try it out with the wrong DM and hate it. They need ways to pull in players beyond individual DMs and they don't that right now; the DMG isn't likely to help in that regard, either, being more a tool for a DM than a brand new player. In the end, there's a lot to like for new and old DMs and older players, but not a lot of hooks to get a player pulled in. For a system to be successful, the players have to be as invested as the DM, and the base system has to be where that starts. The lack of system support for player investment was the biggest disappointment I had with 4E, and the fact that they repeated it doesn't exactly encourage me.


Adjule wrote:
Giving release dates, and then having to push them back, has proven to create rage directed at the company for not giving something they "promised" when they "promised".

Giving specific release dates is not what I am asking for; that would be silly. It shouldn't be that hard to block out rough ideas for quarters, though, unless the team is really so far cut down that they truly can't handle more than one product at a time, which is itself a major problem for a brand that is supposed to be the top of the heap. Either way, complete silence is a problem, especially when taken with recent statements basically admitting they had no idea what they were going to do next or when in regards to at least one much called for product.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Adjule wrote:
As for them not having a release schedule after the DMG, I don't know what to say. I am not an employee of WotC. But they are apparently going more for quality over quantity, which makes me feel that way since they delayed the DMG because they wanted to polish it up better.

I was glad they pushed the DMG back. Although I don't know why they did it, it can't have been a response to D&D sales, so I think it was probably a good decision (or a forced one). I think the chance of them having "no plan" is negligible - one of the advantages of a corporate structure is their discipline around planning and strategic thinking. Whether its a good plan or whether its successful is another matter, of course.

As for future releases, their website seems really clear to me - its becoming more and more obvious that they're not thinking of D&D as a TTRPG any more, but rather as a much broader brand. That makes sense to me having recently learned just how insignificant tabletop gaming is in the gaming industy. (It also clarifies for me why they pushed the board games and online gaming so much during 4E's run).

The more I read, the more confident I am predicting that the release of books will be much slower than previous editions. Their big push is cross-platform promotion. I don't think they care if you play the MMO, read the books, play the RPG or participate in the organised play - they want you to be part of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen storyline in some way.

It doesn't seem to me that they're planning to produce anywhere near the content that paizo do (unless they continue with the PDF focus of 4E - that seemed comparable pagecount-wise, I guess although I never really used it).


Sunshadow:

That's what I thought.

Well, I can't help you find the right group, but I can tell you from experience that playing is believing. It's a LOT more fun than it seems when you just read it. I was mildly impressed with it when I first glanced at the rules, but nothing jumped out at me as being particularly cool.

After I played my first session (with a DM I'd never met before that day, BTW), I was practically vibrating with excitement, and I spent the next week or two jabbering about it to anyone who made the mistake of allowing me to talk at them. I've been a steadfast evangelist for the system ever since.

I can't guarantee you'll feel the same way, of course, but it seems like plenty of other people in this thread have had a similar experience.

Shadow Lodge

Adjule wrote:
Last I saw, Pathfinder was the "industry leader", and regularly beat out D&D as the top selling rpg for quite a bit of 4th edition's life cycle.

Paizo has sold more books in that time that McDonald's, too. Why is that relevant? Because both WotC and McDonalds have published about the same number of books over the past couple of years.

My point? Selling more books than a company that isn't publishing any books isn't quite the amazing feat that some of you are making it out to be.


Ffordesoon wrote:

Sunshadow:

That's what I thought.

Well, I can't help you find the right group, but I can tell you from experience that playing is believing. It's a LOT more fun than it seems when you just read it. I was mildly impressed with it when I first glanced at the rules, but nothing jumped out at me as being particularly cool.

After I played my first session (with a DM I'd never met before that day, BTW), I was practically vibrating with excitement, and I spent the next week or two jabbering about it to anyone who made the mistake of allowing me to talk at them. I've been a steadfast evangelist for the system ever since.

I can't guarantee you'll feel the same way, of course, but it seems like plenty of other people in this thread have had a similar experience.

And if you and everyone else here are still saying the same things a year from now after the shininess has worn off, it will mean something. For now, it's not unimportant, but it's being said with most of the true tests of the system's strengths and weaknesses having been faced yet. The result they must avoid this edition is what happened with 4E, where the same handful of folks (almost exclusively DMs with virtually no pure players in the bunch) repeating almost exactly the same things over and over after the initial surge ended. So far, they seem to be doing good in that department, but I'm still seeing a lot of folks that are waiting on the DMG, so opinions now are still subject to change.

Shadow Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
It doesn't seem to me that they're planning to produce anywhere near the content that paizo do (unless they continue with the PDF focus of 4E - that seemed comparable pagecount-wise, I guess although I never really used it).

I think you're right. And I also think that's a good thing...Paizo, in my opinion, would probably benefit by cutting back their output. I'm not even talking about the other stuff as alluded to in my "Too Many Irons in the Fire?" thead...I'm just talking about the RPG, AP, Campaign Setting, Player's Guide, and Module lines.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Adjule wrote:
As for them not having a release schedule after the DMG, I don't know what to say. I am not an employee of WotC. But they are apparently going more for quality over quantity, which makes me feel that way since they delayed the DMG because they wanted to polish it up better.

I was glad they pushed the DMG back. Although I don't know why they did it, it can't have been a response to D&D sales, so I think it was probably a good decision (or a forced one). I think the chance of them having "no plan" is negligible - one of the advantages of a corporate structure is their discipline around planning and strategic thinking. Whether its a good plan or whether its successful is another matter, of course.

As for future releases, their website seems really clear to me - its becoming more and more obvious that they're not thinking of D&D as a TTRPG any more, but rather as a much broader brand. That makes sense to me having recently learned just how insignificant tabletop gaming is in the gaming industy. (It also clarifies for me why they pushed the board games and online gaming so much during 4E's run).

The more I read, the more confident I am predicting that the release of books will be much slower than previous editions. Their big push is cross-platform promotion. I don't think they care if you play the MMO, read the books, play the RPG or participate in the organised play - they want you to be part of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen storyline in some way.

It doesn't seem to me that they're planning to produce anywhere near the content that paizo do (unless they continue with the PDF focus of 4E - that seemed comparable pagecount-wise, I guess although I never really used it).

And that approach worries me, a lot. For one, they've tried it twice before, and it has yet to actually work. For whatever reason, the brand doesn't have the cross platform appeal that WotC wants it to have. Second, no matter how insignificant tabletop gaming is, it's still the biggest strength of the brand, and to not play up existing strengths is foolishness. Third, I don't expect or want the same output they had before, but they need something, and they need it in writing more than 3 months before putting it out. I can understand the desire to look beyond, but that doesn't mean abandoning the only known commodity the brand has to put out is a good idea, and that is dangerously close to what they are doing right now.

Shadow Lodge

sunshadow21 wrote:
And if you and everyone else here are still saying the same things a year from now after the shininess has worn off, it will mean something. For now, it's not unimportant, but it's being said with most of the true tests of the system's strengths and weaknesses having been faced yet. The result they must avoid this edition is what happened with 4E, where the same handful of folks (almost exclusively DMs with virtually no pure players in the bunch) repeating almost exactly the same things over and over after the initial surge ended. So far, they seem to be doing good in that department, but I'm still seeing a lot of folks that are waiting on the DMG, so opinions now are still subject to change.

Perhaps, but I've seen very little negative reaction to 5e. Some here (mostly by people who will actually admit not to having played it...or even looked at the rules), and some on a much smaller board that seems to pile hate on everything that isn't 4E (it gets plenty of it's own hate as well there, however).


Kthulhu wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Last I saw, Pathfinder was the "industry leader", and regularly beat out D&D as the top selling rpg for quite a bit of 4th edition's life cycle.

Paizo has sold more books in that time that McDonald's, too. Why is that relevant? Because both WotC and McDonalds have published about the same number of books over the past couple of years.

My point? Selling more books than a company that isn't publishing any books isn't quite the amazing feat that some of you are making it out to be.

This is why I say that Paizo isn't ready yet. They have the selling books aspect down well, but being an industry leader is more than just that. Paizo is getting there, and getting there a lot quicker than most, including Paizo, would have expected, but they still need a good couple solid years of overall development and growth to be a legitimate contender.


Kthulhu wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
And if you and everyone else here are still saying the same things a year from now after the shininess has worn off, it will mean something. For now, it's not unimportant, but it's being said with most of the true tests of the system's strengths and weaknesses having been faced yet. The result they must avoid this edition is what happened with 4E, where the same handful of folks (almost exclusively DMs with virtually no pure players in the bunch) repeating almost exactly the same things over and over after the initial surge ended. So far, they seem to be doing good in that department, but I'm still seeing a lot of folks that are waiting on the DMG, so opinions now are still subject to change.
Perhaps, but I've seen very little negative reaction to 5e. Some here (mostly by people who will actually admit not to having played it...or even looked at the rules), and some on a much smaller board that seems to pile hate on everything that isn't 4E (it gets plenty of it's own hate as well there, however).

Negative reaction isn't the only bad outcome for WotC. Of far bigger concern to me if I were a WotC exec would be the lack of long term reaction beyond standard talking points, positive or negative. 4E is a very good example of this. Negative reaction from 4E probably actually helped keep it alive a bit longer simply because it was still better than no reaction, which is what largely was happening by the time Essentials came out. By that time, the same small number of people still actually talking about it had settled into one of two camps with the same talking points being thrown around. The lack of meaningful conversation around it hurt the system a lot. 3rd edition and Pathfinder, for all their faults, manage to keep an actual balanced conversation going, even today; there are a few common complaints but rarely do they all come up in the exact same combination and rarely are they countered by exactly the same positive counter points. 5E has to do the same thing; it has to provide enough talking points, both good and bad, that 1)a large base of people want to have a conversation about it rather than simply ignoring it and 2)no one combination of talking points can truly dominate the conversation the way they did in 4E.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
And that approach worries me, a lot. For one, they've tried it twice before, and it has yet to actually work. For whatever reason, the brand doesn't have the cross platform appeal that WotC wants it to have.

You've said that several times, but I dont think it's born out by the evidence. Their boardgames, novels and online computer game have been doing very well for many years. I think you're extending your experience of D&D to the market. It wouldnt surprise me if the novels, computer game revenue and boardgame revenue havent each surpassed the annual TTRPG revenue for several years.

Quote:
Second, no matter how insignificant tabletop gaming is, it's still the biggest strength of the brand, and to not play up existing strengths is foolishness.

I agree it would be foolish - it's why I think they're focussing on their cross-promotional stuff. In my view, that's the strength of WotC (whatever yours or my preferences may be), not churning out splatbooks for a tiny TTRPG market who are already quite loyal to another company churning out monthly splatbooks.

Quote:
Third, I don't expect or want the same output they had before, but they need something, and they need it in writing more than 3 months before putting it out. I can understand the desire to look beyond, but that doesn't mean abandoning the only known commodity the brand has to put out is a good idea, and that is dangerously close to what they are doing right now.

I'm not defending the wisdom of the strategy (I wouldnt have a clue about what's going to work) - I just think it's pretty clear that that is their strategy.

I'll be quite surprised if D&D beats Pathfinder for more than 2 quarters in the ICv2 surveys - I think they've ceded the field of "book producing" and arent trying particularly hard to win that fight. I think they are mainly keeping a presence and focussing on quality.

As it is, there have already been more 3PP books announced for 5E than WotC books and there's not even a specific license yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We just began our 5th edition campaign. Three of us, myself included, have been greatly enjoying the edition. Two are still unsure; they both agree on one point - they don't like 5th because how it handles treasure and magic items. There was a two hour conversation that broke out after the session because of it. I and another player stayed out of it, occasionally offering opinions.

Kthulu and Ffordesoon are right - this edition really is more free form and more about role play. It is so simple and elegant (such as when it comes to Advantage/Disadvantage). I'm glad that they're trying to focus more on what characters can do with their class abilities rather than rely on magical stuff.

All I know is that this was the first time in years that we haven't had an argument about how a rule works or halted game play because we had to look up situational bonuses or would something get a bonus because of X,Y, and Z.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Merlin_47 wrote:
We just began our 5th edition campaign. Three of us, myself included, have been greatly enjoying the edition. Two are still unsure; they both agree on one point - they don't like 5th because how it handles treasure and magic items. There was a two hour conversation that broke out after the session because of it. I and another player stayed out of it, occasionally offering opinions.

What were the objections?

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,528 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.