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


4th Edition

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,528 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Asphere wrote:


There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.

Agreed and seconded. Not to mention a company needs a successful and profitable system as well. Many people enjoy Palladium books rpgs. Those same rpgs are nowhere near as popular because the fans moved on because of a dislike of the rules.


Asphere wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
People like different tlevels of simplification/complexity. Hell, Swords and Wizardry alone acknowledges this, there are three flavors - White Box, Core, and Complete. Its entirely possible for someone to want something simpler than Pathfinder, but more complicated than 1e. 5e falls into that rulws-medium category.
I happen to know a couple of groups that tried 5e and have already given it up already. One, who hardly play anything but 3e, in large part because they thought it was "dumbed down". The other, who largely play games that aren't D&D, because it was too complex for their tastes - they'd heard it was simplified compared to previous editions, but it's certainly not the sort of rules-lite game they like.
Really? I love Pathfinder and I have been playing since 2E. Additionally love all of the rules-lite clones and run them when I can find a full group. Almost all of my friends play 3E of some type and they all seem to love the game. I don't find it "dumbed down" at all. In fact, I am not sure what that even means. Maybe because they got rid of situational modifiers for the disadvantage/advantage mechanic and rolled commonly taken feats into specializations? I happen to like those features. The few friends I have that enjoy playing rules-lite rpgs are coming back into the D&D fold after years away from it.

I didn't ask them exactly what the two I bumped into meant by "dumbed down", because I was on my lunch break and didn't really have time to chat. But when I've played with them they've always liked piling on modifiers and checking they're all there, so I suspect the Advantage/Disadvantage system would be a part of that. That they also use Fire Fusion and Steel when we occasionally play Traveller might give you an impression of their rules preferences.

As for rules-lite, there's not a single edition of D&D I'd consider to hit that, and certainly they wouldn't. One of them said to me, and I wish I could get the mixed contempt and disdain in their tone across on a message board, "It's got over a hundred pages of spells. You could right a whole system in that, and have space left over for stuff that matters."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:


I didn't ask them exactly what the two I bumped into meant by "dumbed down", because I was on my lunch break and didn't really have time to chat. But when I've played with them they've always liked piling on modifiers and checking they're all there, so I suspect the Advantage/Disadvantage system would be a part of that. That they also use Fire Fusion and Steel when we occasionally play Traveller might give you an impression of their rules preferences.

"Dumbed down" is a copout catchphrase, and a major pet peeve of mine. It doesn't actually mean anything--it's an assessment that is incorrect frequently enough that it carries no weight. It says more about the person saying it than it does about what they're referring to.

5e is "dumbed down" in the way multiplication "dumbs down" addition, or in the way a lever "dumbs down" force. In the way something can be made easier by utilizing a more sophisticated system. In other words, it's not.

Instead of piling on modifiers and rules-lawyering/brute-forcing the system, the challenge is to roleplay to gain advantage. One is about system mastery, the other is about critical thinking and creativity. Saying one of those is "dumb" is dumb. Calling a different kind of challenge than you're used to "dumb" is dumb. If they prefer the former playstyle, that's one thing. They should just say that. But I suspect they don't know what they mean when they say "dumbed down," which is why they're saying it.

Bluenose wrote:
As for rules-lite, there's not a single edition of D&D I'd consider to hit that, and certainly they wouldn't. One of them said to me, and I wish I could get the mixed contempt and disdain in their tone across on a message board, "It's got over a hundred pages of spells. You could right a whole system in that, and have space left over for stuff that matters."

I get that. My eyes glaze over when I get to the spell section and realize a full third of the book is not relevant to the character I want to make. That's a lot of wasted rules from one perspective. And when I do get around to making a caster, I'm perpetually struck by how many spells there are that just do something mundane in a fancy, expensive way. Alarm, for instance, is a magical tin can on a string. It can also alert me long distance, but so can message, so why can't message do what that part of alarm does, and I'll just buy a tin can?

There is also a lot of redundancy due to an unwillingness to scale certain spells. For instance, there's really no need to have slow and time stop be different spells. One is a much weaker version of the other--so why not just design them that way?

5e shows us that with the right rules, you can design a system that is both robust and easy to use. It's too bad they didn't take that approach more with spells.


It's this simple, if you want to play 5 ed. then do so, if you like Pathfinder or whatever your playing then don't switch. Everyone (including myself) have been doing this back and forth on this aspect of this game is better than that, in truth it's all a matter of opinion and those opinions don't mean anything beyond a person taste.
If you simply must weigh all possible variables simply do your own research, go out to your gaming shop and thumb through these books or sit in on a game of said system. Better yet play the game once, or if that's not possible you can watch it streamed online. YouTube is a wonderful thing.
Everyone going on about their system of choice or why that system is less because of that, it starts out civil but quickly becomes conflict.(again I'm guilty of it too.) Go out and get your hands on these materials. The best judge of what works for you is you.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Asphere wrote:
Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.

There's also system burnout. If your group plays Pathfinder, always and only ever Pathfinder, it's sometimes a nice change of pace to play something different, whether it be Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, FATE, Swords & Wizardry, or BESM.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.
There's also system burnout. If your group plays Pathfinder, always and only ever Pathfinder, it's sometimes a nice change of pace to play something different, whether it be Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, FATE, Swords & Wizardry, or BESM.

After 14 years I am definitely burned out on 3x, any version.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and reply to it. Negative comments correlating autism with RPG players is absolutely 100% not cool or welcome on paizo.com.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am absolutely delighted by how 5e turned out to be. After having abandoned D&D with 4e, it feels great to be able to go back again. I was honestly nervous that I would not like the new system, so I'm deeply relieved it was not the case.

I do have a running Pathfinder campaign set in Planescape that's already a year old and is designed to last at least two more years, so I won't be leaving Pathfinder. But for the time being, I will be using 5e for new campaigns.

Two of my players got their own PHs as well, and they are both pretty thrilled with it, so much that one of them might finally start DMing again after, what, 10 years since his last campaign? It would be nice to be on the other side of the screen for a change, I say.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll probably be playing both.

I can see the benefits and drawbacks to both - what I do like about 5E is that I think this will be what I use when introducing somebody new to the hobby. They can cut their teeth on a simplified-but-not-too-great Advantage/Disadvantage system and flat class bonuses and then move on to the more complex but ultimately more rewarding tome of tactical and design bonuses and penalties of Pathfinder.

I do think they made one very, very good decision: They scaled Feats way back. Power attacking is one flat bonuses that's wrapped into another feat. You can move and attack without taking the atrocious Dodge-Mobility-Spring Attack feat chain. Fighters and Monks get more attacks than any other class, and there is no way to change that. The strength of D&D/PF has been in a diverse class system that allowed you to craft a very specific niche. (As opposed to systems like Heroes that gave you flexibility at the expense of clearly defined roles.) The Feats system eroded that more and more to the point where I had players rolling up Sorcerers that could melee on par with a fighter, and Alchemists that completely replaced Rogues. In 5E, Rogues don't suck because there's no one who can step on their toes with the right feat combinations.

To take a feat, you have to be at a level that gives you an ability score increase. And not every class gets these at the same levels. So your rogue or fighter can have God Stats (eventually) or be feat hounds. I love that. I hope that if there is a PF 2.0, they consider this change as well. Feats have just simply gotten way too out of hand.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

I'm playing in a 5e game right now for one simple reason: my girlfriend likes it and plays with me. That is not something that can be said for Pathfinder. I like both systems myself, but she tipped the balance for me.


I will be doing a bit of both I suspect. If someone else is willing to run the game I am perfectly happy to play Pathfinder, but I will never GM for Pathfinder again. It finally reached the point that the amount of time required for preparation in order to provide a challenge for my players was simply too much.

5e seems good to me so far, and provides a closer fit to what I want in a game that I am running.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The more I see of the system, the more I'm convinced I'll be using 5E for the stuff I home brew, but that I'll stick with PFS for organized play. I just don't like they way WotC's organized play program is set up -- especially the part about not being able to run Expeditions at home. Besides, Wizard's PDF hostile stance means I won't be buying anything past the 5E core anyway (which I've had pre-ordered for months).

So for me, 5E in a nutshell: Nice system, backward policies. It really seems like 4E all over again (sadly).

On the other hand, with Pathfinder I may have to put up with a somewhat clunky system, but I get very customer-friendly policies and the best-run OP in the business.

Sovereign Court

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
I'm playing in a 5e game right now for one simple reason: my girlfriend likes it and plays with me. That is not something that can be said for Pathfinder. I like both systems myself, but she tipped the balance for me.

I got the opposite going on. I'd love to give 5E a whirl but my players don't want anything to do with it. Not because of WOTC or the rules they are just enamored with Pathfinder and the APs so that's where I'll have to stay.


Pan wrote:
I'd love to give 5E a whirl but my players don't want anything to do with it. Not because of WOTC or the rules they are just enamored with Pathfinder and the APs so that's where I'll have to stay.

You could see if they'd be interested in playing a Paizo AP converted to 5e. The DMG isn't out yet so it's hard to say how difficult that would be. But it's something worth trying, especially if you feel 5e might be the better system.

I wouldn't be surprised if a community forms to share lists of AP encounter conversions. That shouldn't breach any copyright (would mostly be creature lists and custom builds) and is a boon for all parties involved.

Sovereign Court

Cambrian wrote:
Pan wrote:
I'd love to give 5E a whirl but my players don't want anything to do with it. Not because of WOTC or the rules they are just enamored with Pathfinder and the APs so that's where I'll have to stay.

You could see if they'd be interested in playing a Paizo AP converted to 5e. The DMG isn't out yet so it's hard to say how difficult that would be. But it's something worth trying, especially if you feel 5e might be the better system.

I wouldn't be surprised if a community forms to share lists of AP encounter conversions. That shouldn't breach any copyright (would mostly be creature lists and custom builds) and is a boon for all parties involved.

Yeah still a few hang ups. A big reason we didn't really give 4E a good run is they don't want to learn a new system. Between that and my lack of enthusiasm for the system kept us with 3E.

PF was an easy sell because it is more or less 3E. After a decade with the system its like a well broken in pair of boots. The players love it because they can dive in and play. 90% of the uncertainty is out of the way just great gaming.

Last but not least they love all the toys Paizo has given them in supplements 5E at this stage cant compete with that.

Me? Ive been ready for bounded accuracy for about a decade but they are in love with PF so here I stay. I admit the spot aint bad its not like the system stops me from having fun so its all good.


I started running a one-on-one 5E game for my 7 year-old son and he absolutely loves it. The fact that we can play gridless and the rules are a little more streamlined means we can just pull out the books and dice when we have 30-60 minutes to kill here and there. At the moment I'm running him and a party of NPCs (nature cleric, ranger and fey-lock, plus his ex-criminal barbarian. He rolls for all of them, though I decide the actions of his companions.) through Black Fang's dungeon from the PF Beginner's Box. Conversion's been pretty easy so far (though I just made King Fatmouth a goblin boss from the MM rather than a spellcaster) and I've been doing it all on the fly.

I'm also still running my bi-weekly RotRL game on Roll20. We're about partway through Chapter 4, so I'll definitely be running Pathfinder for awhile (and one of my players recently started up a WotR game, so I'll be playing for awhile, too.) Once the AP is over, I'll have to decide if I want to run PF or 5E for the next campaign. But I still see myself at least dabbling with both systems, regardless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.
There's also system burnout. If your group plays Pathfinder, always and only ever Pathfinder, it's sometimes a nice change of pace to play something different, whether it be Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, FATE, Swords & Wizardry, or BESM.
After 14 years I am definitely burned out on 3x, any version.

+4

edit:
We, 3 players and one GM, had our first 5e game this evening and while not perfect I’ll doubt we will spend more time with PF than with 5e. We had the best gaming experience in years.

Fighter was more fun than PF, Wizard was more funny and cleric was not bad. In fact my friend played a Cleric with Life domain and he was very pleased. Even rogues seems fun.

I played a Wizard with Criminal background and have found a great mix of caster with some rogue flavour.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

My guess is probably the APs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

I don't hate Pathfinder, but I wouldn't say I like it much, either. I tolerate it for a variety of reasons: The quality of organized play; the game's ubiquity; Paizo's other products, etc. Besides, my presence on this website predates the Pathfinder RPG anyway. Why should I leave? ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Like bugleyman I've been here a long time. Once reason I like talking about 5E here is because Wizards website has a lot of RAW bizarro discussions that I get sick of seeing (like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).

Also, I like the stories in the Pathfinder world (the new AP sci-fi fantasy is interesting). But I can't stand BAB, or the Christmas tree effect, the tiny multiple bonuses and penalties, huge stat blocks, full attacks, etc.

So I'm here for the community and the stories.

Sovereign Court

Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).

Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?


I stay here because the forums are better laid out than the WotC forums, and the people overall seem to be better than a lot of the ones from the other place.

I also don't rage hate Pathfinder, and love a lot of the things it has. But overall, and it could just be because "Ooooh shiny new!", but I just really love the more simplistic nature of 5th edition. Like Charlie D, I am extremely annoyed and can't really stand the things he listed.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?

That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:

I stay here because the forums are better laid out than the WotC forums, and the people overall seem to be better than a lot of the ones from the other place.

I also don't rage hate Pathfinder, and love a lot of the things it has. But overall, and it could just be because "Ooooh shiny new!", but I just really love the more simplistic nature of 5th edition. Like Charlie D, I am extremely annoyed and can't really stand the things he listed.

I played D&D Next (playtest) for about a year and we converted to D&D 5E and we are just about to hit 17th level. It isn't shiny new to me anymore but it works really well. I haven't been able to play to this high a level since 1st edition (and I had loads of free time back then unlike now). And while playing D&D Next and D&D 5E I've used old D&D (all editions including 4E) stuff and PF stuff converted over.

What I like is the combo story and leveling joys the players experience. They are exploring a souped up Isle of Dread (I did not remember how many times that place was visited in Dungeon magazine!) and really digging the weird monsters, strange and unsettling villagers, and isolation.

At the same time, the player of the barbarian is really looking forward to hitting 20th level. Barbarians break the ability score cap of 20 in Str and Con at that level, with both adding +4 for a possible 24 in each! He will hit both and he's really looking forward to it.

Shadow Lodge

Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

Liberty's Edge

I haven't. Please don't link any for me. I want to continue to enjoy paizo.com!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

"Nothing says you can't take actions when you're dead!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

"Is breathing evil?"

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hudax wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

"Is breathing evil?"

"If I just go ahead and bypass your bow's +5 by sundering the bowstring......"

"Ha! It doesn't say RAW my bow even needs a string!"

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hudax wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

"Is breathing evil?"

More importantly - "if a Paladin takes a breath, does he fall"?


Charlie D. wrote:
Adjule wrote:

I stay here because the forums are better laid out than the WotC forums, and the people overall seem to be better than a lot of the ones from the other place.

I also don't rage hate Pathfinder, and love a lot of the things it has. But overall, and it could just be because "Ooooh shiny new!", but I just really love the more simplistic nature of 5th edition. Like Charlie D, I am extremely annoyed and can't really stand the things he listed.

I played D&D Next (playtest) for about a year and we converted to D&D 5E and we are just about to hit 17th level. It isn't shiny new to me anymore but it works really well. I haven't been able to play to this high a level since 1st edition (and I had loads of free time back then unlike now). And while playing D&D Next and D&D 5E I've used old D&D (all editions including 4E) stuff and PF stuff converted over.

What I like is the combo story and leveling joys the players experience. They are exploring a souped up Isle of Dread (I did not remember how many times that place was visited in Dungeon magazine!) and really digging the weird monsters, strange and unsettling villagers, and isolation.

At the same time, the player of the barbarian is really looking forward to hitting 20th level. Barbarians break the ability score cap of 20 in Str and Con at that level, with both adding +4 for a possible 24 in each! He will hit both and he's really looking forward to it.

I unfortunately had to quit my 5th edition game as my Sundays stopped being as free as they had been. I greatly enjoyed the game (doing the starter set adventure), even more than I enjoyed the first sessions of 3rd or Pathfinder. Would love to see if I could successfully DM with this edition, or if it was only because my players back in 1998-1999 were my sister and her now-hubby. Would be nice to find players who won't go auto-combat whenever an NPC won't allow them to do a certain thing. But that isn't edition dependant.

I enjoyed my eldritch knight for the 2 levels he was one (dwarf fighter, got to level 4 before I had to quit). It may not be all the shiny newness of the system, but I absolutely love 5th edition. Haven't truely enjoyed a system since I first bought my 25th anniversary 2nd edition AD&D Core books + Council of Wyrms back in 1998. Hope to be able to get another game again.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been running a weekly 5th ed game at my local game store. We're running through the hoard of the dragon queen adventure doing about two hours a week. The game runs fluidly and is dead easy to GM. The players have garnered hardly any loot so far, in comparison to Pathfinder, and yet their characters are still extremely viable.

The game also feels more deadly than Pathfinder. Even four levels in to a character, players have to be careful of creatures they were fighting at 1st level. It's added a touch more realism to things because they don't just go in blazing away.

Surprise rounds are deadly.

The best part is how easy it is to DM. I don't have to spend time checking everything up for a monsters stat. Setting dc's for things doesn't require looking through every skill or referencing multiple pages. It's all so simple and streamlined.

For me that makes telling the story that much easier and it's allowed for players to be more immersed.

Now I also play pathfinder most weeks, in a home group of really good friends. We've played for years, and we still have to reference lots of stuff. Electronic devices have made that easier. I really doubt I'll be able to DM that system again though. Our current DM is burning out and it's highs first real AP. I DMd five campaigns to level 20 before that (3 in 3.5 ed, 1 during the beta , 1 with full pathfinder). I felt mentally exhausted after running each session of those in the later stages of the campaigns.

The only thing that will stop me fully converting over is the investment in time and money that we've all put into pathfinder. Especially hero labs which we all got so we could make characters in minutes rather than days.

The fact I can convert the adventure paths over really easily to get the same story they provide while using a simpler game system means I'll always buy Paizo stuff though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly don't hate Pathfinder, but I am seriously burned out on it.

-TG


EntrerisShadow wrote:

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

The high-quality adventure and setting material. Using 5e (or B/X) rules in no way means I'm not a PF customer anymore. In fact, I'm hoping Paizo gets contracted a la Kobold Press to do a 5E AP.

I'm running Rise of the Runelords this weekend with 5e. Conversion is a snap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

While I don't hate PF -- how could I hate a clone of what was once my favorite D&D game? -- neither do I own any PF products or have much hope that it'll ever being something that'll get me truly excited to play.

However, all the quirks and dare I say it, outright problems which PF has makes it much more interesting to discuss and debate than my current favorite game. Which is great fun to play, but is too well-made to generate many hot-button topics -- within its own fandom, at least.

Also, like bugleyman, my user account predates PF, and there are fun non-game related topics here, like my anime thread!


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
However, all the quirks and dare I say it, outright problems which PF has makes it much more interesting to discuss and debate than my current favorite game. Which is great fun to play, but is too well-made to generate many hot-button topics -- within its own fandom, at least.

5E is still new, and the DMG isn't out yet. I suspect that book will end up generating more than it's fair share of hot button issues, most of which are simply on hold right now until it comes out. Also, for many people, it's less that the system is well made and more that it tends to be play or ignore, which is a double edged sword. The fact that PF and 3.5 is easy to debate about actually helps it's survival by keeping it in the conversation; even those that don't play it still frequently talk about it, making it more likely to get heard of by those that might be interested in playing it. 5E could very easily end up like 4E and not be talked about at all outside of fairly limited circles, which is good in limiting problem discussions, but not so good in generating excitement and buzz for the system long term.

5E, for all of it's strengths, is going to be much, much harder for WotC to sustain than PF will be for Paizo, especially with a limited release schedule; without the name brand to help them, WotC wouldn't really have much of a chance. It's a good system, but it's not a system that is going to generate it's own publicity and buzz, and it's not one that on paper is going to readily appeal to players, making it entirely dependent on DMs to sustain support for it. The organized play network, a key factor for both 3rd edition and PF is going to be of limited success with a system that relies so much on DM on the fly judgments.

As much as I really would like to see the system succeed, I just don't see it generating the amount of long term support it will need in a large enough base for it to be a major player going forward, especially if they are going to limit their book production to the least amount possible that won't completely kill it off, which seems to be their strategy right now. It'll hold it's own in the niche market of tabletop games for a while, but even there it will likely fade away sooner rather than later, just like 4E, and it's not going to have any long term impact at all on the wider entertainment market. Unless WotC and Hasbro can pull off a miracle and actually create a movie or a game that will lift the brand out of this niche, I see the brand continuing to be underdeveloped because they keep choosing to largely ignore the one market it has a strong following in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheRavyn wrote:
I'm running Rise of the Runelords this weekend with 5e. Conversion is a snap.

Any tips, re: converting from Pathfinder > 5.e? I've been waiting impatiently for the Dungeon Masters Guide, but if I can set to work on converting all my PF content sooner than December, I would be a happy fellow indeed.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
However, all the quirks and dare I say it, outright problems which PF has makes it much more interesting to discuss and debate than my current favorite game. Which is great fun to play, but is too well-made to generate many hot-button topics -- within its own fandom, at least.
5E is still new, and the DMG isn't out yet. I suspect that book will end up generating more than it's fair share of hot button issues, most of which are simply on hold right now until it comes out. Also, for many people, it's less that the system is well made and more that it tends to be play or ignore, which is a double edged sword. The fact that PF and 3.5 is easy to debate about actually helps it's survival by keeping it in the conversation; even those that don't play it still frequently talk about it, making it more likely to get heard of by those that might be interested in playing it. 5E could very easily end up like 4E and not be talked about at all outside of fairly limited circles, which is good in limiting problem discussions, but not so good in generating excitement and buzz for the system long term.

I suspect very much that you're right; as more and more fans play and talk about 5e, problems will pop up, as they always do. I've heard that there's already one or two right out of the gate, though I'm not interested enough to ask after the specifics. And sooner or later, that new-edition shine will wear off, and before you know it we'll be discussing D&D 6e vs PF. Or possibly D&D 6e vs. PF 2e.

But in any case, 5e is not the current favorite edition that I mentioned. ;)


mikeawmids wrote:
TheRavyn wrote:
I'm running Rise of the Runelords this weekend with 5e. Conversion is a snap.
Any tips, re: converting from Pathfinder > 5.e? I've been waiting impatiently for the Dungeon Masters Guide, but if I can set to work on converting all my PF content sooner than December, I would be a happy fellow indeed.

Most of the monsters are already in the 5e MM. Or something close to it, like a 5e Giant Lizard in place of the module's Giant Gecko. NPCs, just reduce the AC, and use the 6 ability scores for skills, saves, etc. Cut out like 70-80% of the magic items.

There are some pretty involved conversion guides out there, but with 5e's bounded accuracy, but it's so easy to eyeball this stuff, I haven't really bothered with those yet.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sticking to Pathfinder personally.

Paizo has done a great job at fostering a 3rd party ecosystem in the last few years that I think has already surpassed its predecessor. Unfortunately I don't think Hasbro has the kind of corporate culture that would allow this to happen again like it did back in the 3.5 days.

Liberty's Edge

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

You're about six years (and a whole edition) late for that question. A lot of people who post in this area of the forums like some of Paizo's adventures, but are burned out on 3x and its derivatives. People may not like Paizo's rules, but some of the adventures and stuff are still well written and easy enough to convert.

Scott Betts was doing some really good stuff he posted here with AP conversions to 4e, for instance.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

I don't hate Pathfinder, but I wouldn't say I like it much, either. I tolerate it for a variety of reasons: The quality of organized play; the game's ubiquity; Paizo's other products, etc. Besides, my presence on this website predates the Pathfinder RPG anyway. Why should I leave? ;-)

Yeah, there's the whole last part, too.

I mean, I'm the freaking Vice President of FAWTL, I can't leave. ;-)


I'm in two gaming groups myself. One group likely isn't converting, the other one already has (although due to scheduling, it has two rotating campaigns - the other is a Palladium Heroe's Unlimited game).

The one that converted has a GM who is a published author, on top of being the area supervisor for the local independence center. Shorter prep time will almost always be a selling point for him.


@EntrerisShadow

A lot of people started posting here before Pathfinder existed. I started coming on these boards because I was running adventures out of Dungeon magazine and wanted advice on running some of the adventure paths. I got pretty burned out of 3.5 by the end of its life span, so I wasn't really eager to start playing pathfinder when it was launched, but I was still interested in paizo adventure content. I ended up moving to 4e since it looked like it would address a lot of the issues I had with 3.5, but it had plenty of issues of its own, and I got kind of burned out on that system as well. I'm currently finishing up a paizo AP using pathfinder since I really liked the AP and there wasn't another system I felt like trying to convert it to, but now that 5e is out it's looking much more to my taste than Pathfinder or 4e. I've started playing 5e, but it will take some time to see how it handles in the long run, so far my test drives have been good.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For lack of anywhere better to post this question, I will post it here.

In the 5e monster manual, some monsters (specifically, giant rats and kobolds) have a strength mod of -2, yet their damage is [damage dice] +2. Should that not be -2, as the damage modifier should be the same as the mod on the attribute used to make the attack roll?

(EDIT) It just occurred to me that the attacks for those two monsters could be DEX based, which would explain the +2.

I am trying to convert The Sunless Citadel from 3e > 5e and so far it is going really well. :D


That is correct. They are dex based, and in 5e dex adds to attack and damage with certain weapons.

mikeawmids wrote:

For lack of anywhere better to post this question, I will post it here.

In the 5e monster manual, some monsters (specifically, giant rats and kobolds) have a strength mod of -2, yet their damage is [damage dice] +2. Should that not be -2, as the damage modifier should be the same as the mod on the attribute used to make the attack roll?

(EDIT) It just occurred to me that the attacks for those two monsters could be DEX based, which would explain the +2.

I am trying to convert The Sunless Citadel from 3e > 5e and so far it is going really well. :D


Yep, they are Dex based, which is why they get the +2. It makes some of the weaker (low Str) monsters more deadly when they can actually do decent damage, instead of the 1d4-2 or whatever.

Honestly, I hope that the DMG has rules on the "exceptional Strength" from AD&D (the 18(47) type Str), as well as other rules from AD&D. They are apparently going to have rules for THAC0 instead of the proficiency bonus for attack rolls. Not sure if I would go that far.

All I really really want from the DMG is conversion guide to convert all the previous editions to 5th edition.

1,451 to 1,500 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.