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


4th Edition

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,528 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>

Clearly you know what you're doing!

I would just like to add how that multiple advantage problem hardly comes up anyways. I've seen more than two advantage vs disadvantage rarely. Those situations never seem unjustified for rolling straight dice. Barbarian fighting someone invisible.

That example about having tons of advantages but darkness negating it, as a GM, If you're in a situation with so many (5+) advantages, you probably don't need to roll in the first place.


Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Olondir wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


Cheers. I do wonder how it will mess with the play.

I suspect we'll still do it, but well reserve the right to tweak it later.

Try it for sure! I'm just sharing my own experiences with trying out fights at lvl 5, 10, and 15. Players will hit often thanks to near constant advantage.

I appreciate the comment. Theory is not one of my strengths.

I see a rule where you have five sources of advantage but because the light is poor none of them have any effect and it doesn't seem right. I've certainly got no experience as to how often that kind of situation comes up in play though, or what effect it will have on more "usual" situations.

I'm very wary of the "That make no sense. House ruling it away." reaction. If it really bothers me, I'll look for a way to change it, but not on first glance. I want to play with the game as written for awhile to see if I can figure out why the "makes no sense at first glance" rule was left in.

If it's obvious to me, it was probably obvious to the designer too. Which suggests there's a reason it stayed.

I generally think game designers will do a better job of game design than I will.

Nonetheless, I have a peculiar stance in that balance in an RPG is almost totally unimportant to me. It seems to me that quite often the disconnect between what game designers do and what I prefer stems from balance considerations.

Having said that, I do take your point. We have one member of our group who very much takes your position - namely to play a game as written first before tinkering with it, so we may well play the first 5E campaign with the "5:1 = draw" approach.

It appears to make no sense because you're looking at it arithmetically (ie: 5-1=4, not zero). But I bet the reason for it is to prevent every single d20 roll from devolving into an advantage/disadvantage arms race.

They prioritized gameplay over fussing with numbers.

And it sort of makes sense even without that design philosophy. In the example about not gaining advantage because of dim light, you're mistaking what's happening as "you fail to gain advantage" when it's actually "you successfully avoided disadvantage."


Olondir wrote:
That example about having tons of advantages but darkness negating it, as a GM, If you're in a situation with so many (5+) advantages, you probably don't need to roll in the first place.

I think that's actually the opposite of the intent.

I think the rules intend that there's no such thing as a "perfect storm" of advantage, where you can just stack your way to success without rolling. And that idea works in conjunction with the "bounded accuracy" power curve as well. It doesn't matter how awesome you are, how well prepared, or anything--you can still be taken down.

It's like the movie Office Space. They have the perfect plan (advantage), with the idiot company not paying attention (advantage), with the right team to pull it off (advantage), but because the programmer misplaced a decimal (disadvantage), none of that matters.


sunshadow21 wrote:


I'll agree that it is far short of what other systems can do for sharing control, but for the D&D family, it's still heads and tails above all the other versions.

Bad DMing, in my experience at least, is mostly due to inexperience and not being able to keep details consistent in your head. 3rd edition provides a major safety net in this regard; few DMs would deliberately setup a span that was flat out impossible, and most would be more likely to look at the chart to see what a good baseline was than just spouting out a number....

I assume that most people who are driven away from a TTRPG are new players, who definitely are not going to have the experience and knowledge base to know if their DM is typical of game DM's, or just really bad. That first impression is what matters more about "growing" the hobby, and its relevant for all rpgs. Yeah, 3E has lots of rules to constrain what a DM can do, but I think it's a bit much to expect a novice player to be able to sort that stuff

With experienced players, odds are they won't stick with a bad DM for long; after all, they know what to expect from a game. The only exception is of course if DM's are locally rare, and they might not have a choice. Although easy to set up games such as 5E might encourage more DMs

Of course, you can argue that while 3E/4E limit somewhat the mischief a bad DM can do, you could also argue that by putting so much power in players hands, it increases the likelyhood that a player will use RAW to break a game and generally create a unwelcome environment for new gamers. So I would probably argue that all things being equal, no game really is better in this area.

I will however accept one exception. I think a rules light system could be very problematic for any sort of organized play environment, like PFS. Not sure really how WoTC will handle the new edition in that regard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

(semi-OT: If you want to watch a movie about what an *actual* D&D game session is like...go watch Your Highness. Best dang D&D movie ever, IMNSHO. :) )

^_^

Paul L. Ming


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

I would just like to add how that multiple advantage problem hardly comes up anyways. I've seen more than two advantage vs disadvantage rarely. Those situations never seem unjustified for rolling straight dice. Barbarian fighting someone invisible.

That example about having tons of advantages but darkness negating it, as a GM, If you're in a situation with so many (5+) advantages, you probably don't need to roll in the first place.

Yeah, it may well be something which reads wrong but which I dont notice in play. We'll see.. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Hudax wrote:

I bet the reason for it is to prevent every single d20 roll from devolving into an advantage/disadvantage arms race.

They prioritized gameplay over fussing with numbers.

I suspect you're right.


I've made few comments here, hate to see it get locked because of edition wars, just leave with this

I will probably play both, after all it isn't hard to do that and it isn't hurting anyone if I do

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I will however accept one exception. I think a rules light system could be very problematic for any sort of organized play environment, like PFS. Not sure really how WoTC will handle the new edition in that regard.

5e isn't quite as minimal as some here are implying. I'd call it rules-medium, as opposed to rules-light or rules-heavy. As Ffordesoon said before, 5e has a pretty robust system.


Kthulhu wrote:
Cptexploderman wrote:
it's being repackaged as this edition

What does this even mean?

Between Pathfinder and 5e, one of them is something repackaged, and one of them is something new.

5e is new.

Oh, and Cptexploderman? Favoriting your own posts doesn't make it look like more people agree with you. It makes you look like you're desperate to make people THINK that more people agree with you.

Easy Kthulhu, it's a game. If you like it..as your unending posts in defense of 5th show you clearly have strong feelings for it. It's alright, dice up and have a go at it. 5th in my OPINION "simply that." draws heavily on Saga ed. Thus my repackaged statement. I fav'd my comment because it made me laugh sorry it's my troll knee jerk reaction. If it hurts you so deeply I promise I won't again.. Honest. I'm totally willing to hug this out, come on, bring it in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cptexploderman wrote:
Easy Kthulhu, it's a game. If you like it..as your unending posts in defense of 5th show you clearly have strong feelings for it. It's alright, dice up and have a go at it.

Did you ever consider that it might not be about the game? Anytime anyone defends WotC, 4E, 5E, etc. on these boards, they're automatically assumed to be fanatics - either of the company or the system.

The reality is that lots of people who like Paizo hate WotC, and they'll badmouth anything that WotC produces just on principle. While those people may have very legitimate reasons for not liking WotC, they often resort to expressing that dislike with poorly constructed arguments and complaints with no basis in reality. Putting "in my opinion" in front of any old ridiculous claim does not excuse someone from expressing themself clearly or doing some simple fact checking.

Regardless of preference, we have a responsibility to be clear and accurate and to add something of value to the conversation.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a few baiting posts/insults. Guys, it's really not necessary to address content you disagree with by using profanity and elevating the discussion. We get that new editions are going to cause people to butt heads, get frustrated and so on, but this stuff is seriously divisive and doesn't contribute anything positive to the discussion. Challenge ideas, not other people.


Ffordesoon wrote:
Oh, and it's worth noting that 5e does have a fairly robust set of rules for common play scenarios, not to mention a table that lists common DCs for all skill checks. It might be simpler than 3.x, but the safety net you speak of is still pretty generous in comparison...

How robust that actually manages to be long term is going to be important given the role that organized play is going to have and the increased mobility of society today. The biggest concern I have at this point is how much those actually get used and how much of them being present is empty lip service. With 3rd edition, it was impossible to ignore, which was probably a bit too much; 4th edition was difficult to do casually, but easy enough for those that wanted to, which made it hard as a player to set expectations. Older editions didn't even attempt to provide support in that area.

Where 5E ultimately needs to land is somewhere in between, where there is a clear baseline, making it possible for the players to establish some kind of consistent expectation (and I'm not sure that 5E has this with an awful lot of abilities referring the player to the DM to make a decision), while providing DMs built in tools to change the baseline in ways that don't break the game or leave players completely guessing.

It's too early to really tell how everything will ultimately work with the DMG not out yet, and everyone still getting used to the new system, but the DMG is going to have to be one of the absolute best books they have ever put out and the system in practice is going to have to be a lot more robust across multiple tables in a full campaign environment than it looks like on paper. They have a decent start, but they haven't yet proved that they've learned their lessons from earlier editions.


Sebastrd wrote:
Cptexploderman wrote:
Easy Kthulhu, it's a game. If you like it..as your unending posts in defense of 5th show you clearly have strong feelings for it. It's alright, dice up and have a go at it.

Did you ever consider that it might not be about the game? Anytime anyone defends WotC, 4E, 5E, etc. on these boards, they're automatically assumed to be fanatics - either of the company or the system.

The reality is that lots of people who like Paizo hate WotC, and they'll badmouth anything that WotC produces just on principle. While those people may have very legitimate reasons for not liking WotC, they often resort to expressing that dislike with poorly constructed arguments and complaints with no basis in reality. Putting "in my opinion" in front of any old ridiculous claim does not excuse someone from expressing themself clearly or doing some simple fact checking.

Regardless of preference, we have a responsibility to be clear and accurate and to add something of value to the conversation.

I agree, I also don't hate WotC or D&D. Advanced D&D all those years ago is the game I cut my teeth on so to speak. D&D will always hold a place in my heart, I've just not liked the last two versions of it. TSR fanboy right here. As for WotC I've played MTG on and off since Beta.

Just since the end of 3.5 I've invested and enjoyed Pathfinder. It's my money sink of choice so to speak. This forum was set with the question, will I switch. My answer was no and I gave reason. That's all, the edition warring was here long before I posted. I'm sorry if people saying " In my opinion" is a hot topic with you sir but there's nothing you can do about it. I could spout off with, in my opinion turkeys should have lasers! Or apples have a thinly hidden agenda for enacting world domination!, nonsense? Sure, the posters right to say? You got it. I think often people are too serious on here, we are talking about RPGs and a hobby here.. Something we do for enjoyment. It's not Geo Political Science we are discussing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cptexploderman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Cptexploderman wrote:
it's being repackaged as this edition

What does this even mean?

Between Pathfinder and 5e, one of them is something repackaged, and one of them is something new.

5e is new.

Oh, and Cptexploderman? Favoriting your own posts doesn't make it look like more people agree with you. It makes you look like you're desperate to make people THINK that more people agree with you.

Easy Kthulhu, it's a game. If you like it..as your unending posts in defense of 5th show you clearly have strong feelings for it. It's alright, dice up and have a go at it. 5th in my OPINION "simply that." draws heavily on Saga ed. Thus my repackaged statement. I fav'd my comment because it made me laugh sorry it's my troll knee jerk reaction. If it hurts you so deeply I promise I won't again.. Honest. I'm totally willing to hug this out, come on, bring it in.

I'm not really seeing the repackaged thing with D&D:Next, can you further elaborate?

I see similarities but the numbers and what they actually accomplish with this edition is FAR from what it once was. For some examples:

Feats - WotC introduced this mechanic with 3E and it's continued to now. It has, however, changed significantly with each edition. In 3E it was a way for character to get special non-class "Features" they could do. In a system that's heavily negative (meaning doing anything is often penalized) feats were meant to make your character feel stronger in a certain area. Like Two-Weapon Fighting, for instance, reduced the -6 / -8 penalties to -2/-2 with a light, off-hand weapon. In 4E they weren't so much "You can do X ability now" but more of a "Add X to an ability you have or a class feature you have or X-damage type". In essence, they boosted your overall capability OR gave you outright power increase or higher numbers in a specific area. They also funneled ALL the Multiclassing to this aspect. In 5E, it's completely devoid of character growth as a requirement, instead making it optional. Further, the benefits received are MUCH greater, as many people refer to D&D:Next's feats as Macro-feats because it gives you multiple benefits at once.

Classes - This one too has similarities yet is vastly different from previous editions. Even just looking at the Core rules, each class has a little bit of 3E and 4E thrown in but on a framework that is set FAR below what either edition is expected to be. For example, a 4E Fighter was pretty much expected to have an AC 19 / 20 / 22 progression by 5th level and progressing to 30's and 40's by tier while a 5E Fighter's AC can easily be set at 18 for a GOOD portion of their career IF they didn't receive magical items. And look at spellcasting. Players aren't getting multiple HIGH level spells this time around, topping out at ONE 9th level, regardless of Intelligence modifier. Suffice to say that they've attempt to blend the better parts of 4E and 3E into something similar yet brand new that has it's own identity.

Also, I might add that WotC has tried REALLY hard to get that "vibe" back, making 5E appear like older versions. Personally, I loved 4E (I still thinks it's the best system by far) however I accept that a lot of people were put off by a lot of it, even down to the layout, colors, and interior design of the books. To many, it didn't "feel" like D&D and while it's subjective, it means that if people don't get that vibe then they're less likely to buy it.

So maybe the idea of it being more like previous editions is done by design, because that way when people look at it they'll say "Oh, this is definitely D&D."


I believe Cptexploderman is saying 5th edition is a repackaged SAGA system. But, since I am not him, I could be wrong.


Adjule wrote:
I believe Cptexploderman is saying 5th edition is a repackaged SAGA system. But, since I am not him, I could be wrong.

You are correct sir. 5th different in many ways to the Saga ed. but the feel and the character builds feel like Saga. Again this just my opinion. I've watched 5th live streamed and read much of the PBH and it doesn't thrill me. I'll be keeping with Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

Diffan wrote:
So maybe the idea of it being more like previous editions is done by design, because that way when people look at it they'll say "Oh, this is definitely D&D."

This is it for me. I see the 3x and the 4e elements, but in general feel, it's more like 2e in a lot of ways. None of the esoteric stuff that I love from 1e (nostalgia, mostly) but a lot of 2e and beyond players don't like much. Which is cool, it's 2014, not 1980, after all.

The thing that says "this is D&D" most to me, though, is the flattened power curve (now that's 1e, for sure) and the fact that fighters are supposed to be pretty bad ass (1e fighters were mechanically boring, but they were deadly), and wizards aren't supposed to be invulnerable (an issue with high level 3x). I feel 5e addressed the power divide 3x brought in the martial vs magical classes quite well, actually.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
houstonderek wrote:
The thing that says "this is D&D" most to me, though, is the flattened power curve (now that's 1e, for sure) and the fact that fighters are supposed to be pretty bad ass (1e fighters were mechanically boring, but they were deadly), and wizards aren't supposed to be invulnerable (an issue with high level 3x). I feel 5e addressed the power divide 3x brought in the martial vs magical classes quite well, actually.

Yeah, this is my feel (without actually having played it yet). I'm also a big fan of the concentration restriction on spellcasting. I dont know if it was possible back in AD&D days, but we didnt generally bother with more than one active spell at a time - in later versions of the game it's appeared to me that preparing for a significant combat by stacking multiple magical effects is expected.

I dont know how the more modern players feel about it - my guess would be this will be one of the biggest stumbling blocks if you were born and raised on later editions.

Liberty's Edge

We used to stack spells back then too. One of the classics was levitate/fly + improved invisibility (or maybe it was a ring, I forget if improved existed in 1e) + projected image. Hilarity ensued.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I dont think there's any improved invisibility in AD&D.

Probably it was just our style. Our magicusers are almost always predominantly damage dealers.

Shadow Lodge

Well, for higher-level magic-users, damage dealing / blasting was actually one of the better options. When the also high-level enemy made it's very easy save, at least it took half-damage. Save or suck / die spells tended lean more and more towards the SAVE option as the wizard got higher level.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Diffan wrote:
So maybe the idea of it being more like previous editions is done by design, because that way when people look at it they'll say "Oh, this is definitely D&D."
This is it for me. I see the 3x and the 4e elements, but in general feel, it's more like 2e in a lot of ways.

Yeah. It's not really mechanically close to 0e, 1e, B/X, BECMI, or 2e, but it FEELS like them. In a way that 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder never managed, at least for me. For me, it's like D&D has returned after almost 15 years of vacation. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was hesitant at first, but then I got to take a look at the PHB and got really excited and ran a quick game, borrowing the PHB and Adventure Module HotDQ from one of my friends.

While 5E addressed so many of my problems, it also introduces so very many.

The novelty of Advantage/Disadvantage quickly wears off because everything applies to it and there is no other mechanic to fall back onto.

Bounded accuracy, I love the idea, in fact E6 feels like it's baked in; it's not, however. Levels 1 & 2 are super risky (half your enemies have advantage which means twice the critical, which doesn't need to confirm btw, it's easier to be one-shot slain at level 1 by CR appropriate enemies), and magical / nonmagical divide while less apparent is even stronger. One of their simplifications was the removal of most AoO, which means Reach weapons no longer strike first onto people charging on their face, casters no longer need to worry about casting in front of melee units, etc. I could go on, but I think this rant has gone on long enough.

I love the backgrounds section (although the inspiration is rather lackluster further pushing the already repetitive mechanic) and would take them any day over Pathfinder's Traits. The classes are pretty awesome, I'd like to incorporate their version of Fighter, Rogue, and even Paladin into the Pathfinder game.

It's a mixed bag, which means I'd really only want it for inspiration. I won't even talk about how much the campaign book turned me away in this post.

tldr; I won't be switching over. I feel like I'm better off modding PF to my liking.


Kthulhu wrote:
Well, for higher-level magic-users, damage dealing / blasting was actually one of the better options. When the also high-level enemy made it's very easy save, at least it took half-damage. Save or suck / die spells tended lean more and more towards the SAVE option as the wizard got higher level.

How does spell resistance (or some analog) work in AD&D? Once of the biggest criticisms of magic in d20 is that it is supposedly balanced by spell resistance, but so many of the best spells have SR: No that it is basically irrelevant. Does AD&D have a ton of spells that bypass magic resistance?

Shadow Lodge

Spell resistance was given as a percentage. That percentage was modified by the caster's level....+5% for every level under 11th, -5% for every level over 11th.

While I'm sure im forgetting some, I don't of the top of my head remember ANY spell automatically bypassing spell resistance.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Diffan wrote:
So maybe the idea of it being more like previous editions is done by design, because that way when people look at it they'll say "Oh, this is definitely D&D."
This is it for me. I see the 3x and the 4e elements, but in general feel, it's more like 2e in a lot of ways.
Yeah. It's not really mechanically close to 0e, 1e, B/X, BECMI, or 2e, but it FEELS like them. In a way that 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder never managed, at least for me. For me, it's like D&D has returned after almost 15 years of vacation. :)

I am going to use the "15 year vacation" line. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Well, for higher-level magic-users, damage dealing / blasting was actually one of the better options. When the also high-level enemy made it's very easy save, at least it took half-damage. Save or suck / die spells tended lean more and more towards the SAVE option as the wizard got higher level.
How does spell resistance (or some analog) work in AD&D? Once of the biggest criticisms of magic in d20 is that it is supposedly balanced by spell resistance, but so many of the best spells have SR: No that it is basically irrelevant. Does AD&D have a ton of spells that bypass magic resistance?

Almost nothing got past spell resistance. Fighters weren't caddies and sherpas in pre-3x D&D, not by a long shot.

Wizards of the Coast, for some reason, really liked wizards in 3x.

Dark Archive

Kthulhu wrote:

Spell resistance was given as a percentage. That percentage was modified by the caster's level....+5% for every level under 11th, -5% for every level over 11th.

While I'm sure im forgetting some, I don't of the top of my head remember ANY spell automatically bypassing spell resistance.

That was 1st ed, 2nd ed was a fixed value that didn't scale with caster level.

I prefer 1st eds version and I use a variation of that for my 2nd ed game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I've looked into the game in more depth (by virtue of finally having a PHB in my hands for an extended amount of time), I see that the 4E mechanics of "daily power" and "encounter power" are effectively still around; the key difference is in their presentation ("requires a long rest"/"requires a short rest"). Although mechanically very similar, the 5E version sounds like a natural consequence of activity (i.e., you're weary and need a rest) while the 4E version sounded like an artificial construct (you have a category X power that resets).

Similarly, by not couching everything in the same "daily power"/"encounter power"/"at-will power" terms, you mitigate a lot of the "every class feels the same" problem of 4E. Even if a lot of class features CAN effectively be described in terms of when they reset, focusing on how the feature works thematically for your class, rather than forcing it into a mechanical slot, feels a lot more organic and less (to use the common complaint) "video-gamey." And, I would think, leads to less staring at your character sheet thinking "What power should I use for this?" Or worse, "Sigh, I'm all out of powers, guess I'll use my at-will ability, even though it's pretty weak."

-The Gneech


houstonderek wrote:
137ben wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Well, for higher-level magic-users, damage dealing / blasting was actually one of the better options. When the also high-level enemy made it's very easy save, at least it took half-damage. Save or suck / die spells tended lean more and more towards the SAVE option as the wizard got higher level.
How does spell resistance (or some analog) work in AD&D? Once of the biggest criticisms of magic in d20 is that it is supposedly balanced by spell resistance, but so many of the best spells have SR: No that it is basically irrelevant. Does AD&D have a ton of spells that bypass magic resistance?

Almost nothing got past spell resistance. Fighters weren't caddies and sherpas in pre-3x D&D, not by a long shot.

Wizards of the Coast, for some reason, really liked wizards in 3x.

Uh, I think you're mistaken in at least your view on it being WotC that "loved" wizards and ect ect. I played AD&D and 2nd.. Mages as they were called were weak from level 1 to 4, once you learned fly and fireball you were the god king of your party. The Fighter with their 2/1 attacks upward to 3/1 could do nothing to a Mage, much less a Mage with stone skins.

It wasn't 3x systems that made Arcane strong, it just made them stronger at lowbie. I do agree with your take(s) on spell res. it was a nightmare in the Old school, fun but a nightmare. Not just spell res but i recall things like the Death Knight with its auto spell refection..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Robey wrote:

As I've looked into the game in more depth (by virtue of finally having a PHB in my hands for an extended amount of time), I see that the 4E mechanics of "daily power" and "encounter power" are effectively still around; the key difference is in their presentation ("requires a long rest"/"requires a short rest"). Although mechanically very similar, the 5E version sounds like a natural consequence of activity (i.e., you're weary and need a rest) while the 4E version sounded like an artificial construct (you have a category X power that resets).

Similarly, by not couching everything in the same "daily power"/"encounter power"/"at-will power" terms, you mitigate a lot of the "every class feels the same" problem of 4E. Even if a lot of class features CAN effectively be described in terms of when they reset, focusing on how the feature works thematically for your class, rather than forcing it into a mechanical slot, feels a lot more organic and less (to use the common complaint) "video-gamey." And, I would think, leads to less staring at your character sheet thinking "What power should I use for this?" Or worse, "Sigh, I'm all out of powers, guess I'll use my at-will ability, even though it's pretty weak."

-The Gneech

I like that the short rest is an hour long now as apposed to five minutes. I find that party's really feel like they can't waste an hour taking a rest. In 4e my players would rest after each encounter now I find that they keep going as long as they possibly can.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Cptexploderman wrote:
Uh, I think you're mistaken in at least your view on it being WotC that "loved" wizards and ect ect. I played AD&D and 2nd.. Mages as they were called were weak from level 1 to 4, once you learned fly and fireball you were the god king of your party. The Fighter with their 2/1 attacks upward to 3/1 could do nothing to a Mage, much less a Mage with stone skins.

I've never played 2nd edition, but in AD&D we found magicusers quite weak until double figure levels. A fifth level MU got either fly or one 5d6 fireball, save for half. Good for killing lots of little guys, but not actually terribly useful against a fifth level fighter with a potion of extra healing. The spell disruption rules were pretty brutal, too (at least the way we played it).

Maybe things changed in 2nd edition?


Kip84 wrote:


I like that the short rest is an hour long now as apposed to five minutes. I find that party's really feel like they can't waste an hour taking a rest. In 4e my players would rest after each encounter now I find that they keep going as long as they possibly can.

I've been using a version of Evil Lincoln's Strain/Injury house rules. Basically crits and final attacks deal lethal damage (injury), while other damage is nonlethal (strain). I've made my own modifications; Upped it from 5 min to 15 min and changed it from a full recovery to level + con.

After being spoiled with this, I find it superior in verisimiltude and pacing than the rolling a hit die. Also less chancey.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Cptexploderman wrote:
Uh, I think you're mistaken in at least your view on it being WotC that "loved" wizards and ect ect. I played AD&D and 2nd.. Mages as they were called were weak from level 1 to 4, once you learned fly and fireball you were the god king of your party. The Fighter with their 2/1 attacks upward to 3/1 could do nothing to a Mage, much less a Mage with stone skins.

I've never played 2nd edition, but in AD&D we found magicusers quite weak until double figure levels. A fifth level MU got either fly or one 5d6 fireball, save for half. Good for killing lots of little guys, but not actually terribly useful against a fifth level fighter with a potion of extra healing. The spell disruption rules were pretty brutal, too (at least the way we played it).

Maybe things changed in 2nd edition?

No, they seemed pretty much the same. One HP of damage and no magic is the rule I remember.

Also, the chances of making saves went up as levels did, not down. In 3E and 3.5 save DC's climb faster than save bonuses, while before that the save DC was effectively static, but saves went up.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. 2e didn't do much to change the 1e relationship between the classes, other than to eliminate a few all together and add one (core). The magic user was still a glass cannon, and wasn't anything close to the 3x wizard, level by level, until well into double digits.

Oh, and Stoneskin, iirc, was a sixth level spell, so I doubt any 5th level magic users were casting it (for Cptexploderman). I think you also forget that you have to declare your actions before you roll initiative in 1e (I forget if they still did that in 2e), that high level spells took a LONG time to cast, relatively, and, even if you're stone skinned, it didn't take much to disrupt casting.

If the wizard could get the spell off, yeah, big time wow. But, in AD&D, getting that spell off was far from certain, unless your DM was a total pushover or ignored a ton of stuff.

3x? Let's see, even the most powerful spells generally take as long to cast as the lowliest first level spell, you can practically do cartwheels while casting, and even if you do get hit, you have an incredibly easy concentration check. Couple all of that with DCs that scale faster than save bonuses, all kinds of stuff to make SR a pointless stat in most cases, and the fact that the AD&D fighter got that 2/1 or 3/1 AND his move, and in 3x it was either/or, oh, yeah, 3x was "wizard" edition.

1,351 to 1,400 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.