| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was great when it came out. A real relief from the madness that 3.X had descended into. I loved how game play seemed more balanced, and many of the optimization "tricks" were toned down in the core rules and even the first supplement or two.
And then came the APG. And with it, the gunslinger, the alchemist, and the summoner.
In the time since, Pathfinder has begun to groan under the weight of its own cheese. With the new class book coming out, I'm starting to feel just like I did with 3.X when Pathfinder first came out.
And now I see 5th Edition D&D, just about ready to bite into. Simplified. Less optimization-y. A lot like Pathfinder was, once.
Hear that creaking and groaning? Right around the structural supports?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah. Pathfinder is still as solidly balanced as it ever was. Summoner was a definite problem, but not as much so as Druid or Wizard, and only Arcanist is a potential issue with the ACG. Really, the calculus of class and race balance (and thus 'cheese') hasn't changed a whole lot since the game came out, and not much at all since the APG.
D&D Next isn't looking notably more balanced than Pathfinder, just simpler in the sense of there being less options. And how are less options inherently a good thing? I'm also not a big fan of the way the skill system is set up.
Oh, and on a pedantic note, the Gunslinger was in UC, not the APG.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that groaning might be me at seeing yet another thread like this.
I like the new material that has come out over time, one of my favorite characters was an alchemist, etc, etc. Sure system mastery is rewarded but I don't think splatbook bloat is much of a problem with websites like the PFSRD and the Archives of Nethys out there.
Are people going to exploit certain facets of the system? Yes, that's inevitable but it is more a problem inherent in the players than the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not more balanced?
Look at the average Will saves of a level 20 Pathfinder Cleric and a level 20 Pathfinder Rogue.
Now look at the Wisdom saves of a level 20 5th Edition Cleric and a level 20 5th Edition Rogue.
What was that about balance again?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not more balanced?
Look at the average Will saves of a level 20 Pathfinder Cleric and a level 20 Pathfinder Rogue.
Now look at the Wisdom saves of a level 20 5th Edition Cleric and a level 20 5th Edition Rogue.
What was that about balance again?
Uh...both are 6 points different. Plus the stat differences. A 20th level 5th Ed. character has a +6 Proficiency Bonus, which the Cleric adds to Wis Saves and the Rogue doesn't.
The only real difference is in magic items, and is because we don't have any rules for such items from the free 5th Ed. PDF. So...that means basically nothing.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in about 4-5 years we will hear your thoughts on how 5E is "groaning under its own weight." To be honest the will saves of clerics and rogues is pretty much the same as when PF was released. Are you sure its not the new hotness of a freshly released system that calls out to you? As has been mentioned many times supplement books are not required to play PF. If the weight is too much you can do something about that. If PF was great at launch why is it still not great? I don't think supplements are to blame.
Level 20th character?! All of the Adventure Path except Wrath of the Righteous end well before 20th level. Sorry, but really, if you are playing a 20th level character, what do you expect? its going to be "nigh-on-invulnerable" in any system.
Regarding too much complexity. Maybe Paizo needs to issue a basic game with striped down rules and options for newbies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then go play that. I don't anticipate there will be a mass exodus, but people should play what they like. Plenty of folks still love Pathfinder ... warts and all.
And don't kid yourself, D&D 5 will have its weak spots, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in about 4-5 years we will hear your thoughts on how 5E is "groaning under its own weight."
Probably, yes. Like Paizo, WotC must "publish or perish", and it must publish what sells. And what sells is power creep.
Although 5th Edition seems to have toned down CoDzilla quite a bit, what with the limit of one buff at a time. Even Pathfinder core can't boast that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing that has been published since Pathfinder Core, with the *possible* exception of the Summoner and/or Arcanist, can break the game more than a Core Rulebook Wizard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding too much complexity. Maybe Paizo needs to issue a basic game with striped down rules and options for newbies.
yeah that would be great...something to act as an intro into the game...maybe they can even produce it in a boxed set!
hhhhmmmmm....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was great when it came out. A real relief from the madness that 3.X had descended into. I loved how game play seemed more balanced, and many of the optimization "tricks" were toned down in the core rules and even the first supplement or two.
And then came the APG. And with it, the gunslinger, the alchemist, and the summoner.
In the time since, Pathfinder has begun to groan under the weight of its own cheese. With the new class book coming out, I'm starting to feel just like I did with 3.X when Pathfinder first came out.
And now I see 5th Edition D&D, just about ready to bite into. Simplified. Less optimization-y. A lot like Pathfinder was, once.
Hear that creaking and groaning? Right around the structural supports?
Yeah I am going to agree with other people. You could make an argument that 5E is a simpler game. But it sounds like you were find with Pathfinder, you just think the rules supplements complicate things.
Which is kind of unfair, since 5E literally hasn't had a single hardcover rule book release. Of course it has less options...we only have the basic free PDF and the starter box. Unless WOTC changes their business model from 4E/3E, they are probably pretty going to outpace Paizo on rules and character options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and what does all this have to do with adventure paths?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless WOTC changes their business model from 4E/3E, they are probably pretty going to outpace Paizo on rules and character options.
There are plenty of hints that Wizards is still going to focus on Crunch as their game's selling point. For example, what's the #1 reason that Paizo can afford to make their Core Rulebook products available for free online? Their flagship product isn't part of the Core line. When you get down to it, Paizo products two to three Core line products per year. They make their bank on the Golarion setting in the form of APs, Player Companions, and Campaign Setting products. You'll note that Paizo has a much more aggressive release schedule with those products.
On the other hand, we still haven't heard anything from Wizards of the Coast in regards to 5E's OGL (if one will exist at all) and they seem more than willing to commission 3PP to product their APs rather than develop them in house themselves. (I think Kobold Press wrote their first one, right?)
While I'm certainly not qualified to judge either company's business plan for certain, both company's release schedules and OGL policies seem to indicate what each company is focusing on as its primary revenue generator.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah...outsourcing the first big adventure to Kobold Press, along with what seems to be a relatively luke-warm reception to the starter adventures, make my strongly doubt they are going to follow Pathfinder in basing their business model around adventures.
They do have a lot of great properties, and so we might see a stronger emphasis on campaign setting material. Gencon will probably have a bunch of announcements, which should give use directions on what tactics they are trying for their business model.
Nothing that has been published since Pathfinder Core, with the *possible* exception of the Summoner and/or Arcanist, can break the game more than a Core Rulebook Wizard.
Quoth the munchkin, "Wizard's core!"
As I said before, 5e seems to have dealt with CoDzilla (and to a certain extent his Arcane cousin) by limiting casters to being able to focus on one buff at a time, and having those buffs "dispel" if they are hit in melee and fail a concentration check.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was great when it came out. A real relief from the madness that 3.X had descended into. I loved how game play seemed more balanced, and many of the optimization "tricks" were toned down in the core rules and even the first supplement or two.
And then came the APG. And with it, the gunslinger, the alchemist, and the summoner.
In the time since, Pathfinder has begun to groan under the weight of its own cheese. With the new class book coming out, I'm starting to feel just like I did with 3.X when Pathfinder first came out.
And now I see 5th Edition D&D, just about ready to bite into. Simplified. Less optimization-y. A lot like Pathfinder was, once.
Hear that creaking and groaning? Right around the structural supports?
Mythic rules, Hybrid classes... its definitely starting to feel more and more like 3.5. More and more PC races, more and more PC classes and prestige classes, more and more variant 'optional' rules like Unchained and Mythic so that soon your list of banned material is longer than what you actually allow....
I support Pathfinder for its outstanding materials, specifically its AP's and the wonderfully organized PFS - I could care less if another class was ever introduced. I'm sure people will seek to disagree, but I think you're dead on with your assessment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen of the basic set, it looks boring and uninapired. Options seem homogenized. Honestly, I think 13th Age does a better job of being 5th Ed than 5th Ed. But honestly, I don't agree with people that think simplified automatically means better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want simple, you can always allow core only pathfinder.
I like options. That's why I like the wealth of material available for me to use with pathfinder-- all the PF core books, player's companion, the stuff I still have from 3.5, and third party stuff like Deep Magic.
If you don't like having all those options, then you can simply use the ones you like/want and ignore the ones you don't.
Only place where you are forced to interact with options you potentially find distasteful is PF Society, and even there it would only be on other people's character sheets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see how simple 5e is in a year, my guess not very.
I give it more than a year, but less than five.
And Mr. Mona, I don't see it as an edition war -- it's something different. I'd probably prefer original core Pathfinder to whatever 5th Edition D&D will become five years down the road, for example.
Sometimes, it's just time to move on. These rule sets have a life cycle, and sometimes -- it's just time.
EDIT: But, I think there is evolution of a sort. A kind of refinement. My suspicion is that the people who wrote 5E learned a lot from PF, and whoever writes the next incarnation of PF (for there will eventually be one) will have learned more than a little from 5E.
Limiting casters to being able to concentrate only on one buff spell at a time, for example -- good idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest and say I've lightly skimmed over the 5th edition basic rules. My take is when WotC delivers a system solely for less 'rules bloat' that is the wrong approach. Who says rules bloat is a bad thing? Who says rules light is a good thing? It's all relative to us, the consumers. I honestly prefer as many options as possible and Pathfinder has so many already and more coming out.
Seems to me 5th edition is nothing but a mash-up between editions for the sake of mashing them up just for something different and they can put new artwork and call it brand new. If I want a mash-up I could have tweaked 3.5 and 2nd editions together on my own, I don't need a new edition from WotC. So in another 6 years they'll most likely start winding down 5th edition and start up designs and release 6th edition for the bloody sake of doing it all over again.
All that said, I enjoy many different systems. I may just try 5th edition and get hooked, you never know. I do know I'll be playing Pathfinder for a loooong time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest and say I've lightly skimmed over the 5th edition basic rules. My take is when WotC delivers a system solely for less 'rules bloat' that is the wrong approach. Who says rules bloat is a bad thing? Who says rules light is a good thing? It's all relative to us, the consumers. I honestly prefer as many options as possible and Pathfinder has so many already and more coming out.
Yes, and so did 3.5 when it (effectively) died. In large part because so many of the people who would have stuck with it moved to Pathfinder instead -- very often at least in part because it had less "rules bloat" and "power creep". I ought to know, I was one of those people, and those were two of the big reasons for me.
Seems to me 5th edition is nothing but a mash-up between editions for the sake of mashing them up just for something different and they can put new artwork and call it brand new. If I want a mash-up I could have tweaked 3.5 and 2nd editions together on my own, I don't need a new edition from WotC. So in another 6 years they'll most likely start winding down 5th edition and start up designs and release 6th edition for the bloody sake of doing it all over again.
5th Edition was created to make money for WotC. If they didn't think it would make them money, they wouldn't have created it. They're a business.
And provided they survive long enough, they WILL eventually release a 6th Edition. Just like Paizo (if THEY survive long enough) will eventually release "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" (or whatever they want to call it).
And there's nothing inherently wrong with any of that.
All I'm saying is that there is a pattern here, and I'm seeing the wheel turn one more time. And, yes, expecting it to turn again someday.
All in all I think it's a good thing that WotC and Paizo have such competition in each other -- good for us, the players and DM/GMs.
But still, the pattern shifts, the wheel turns, and sometimes -- it's just time.
All that said, I enjoy many different systems. I may just try 5th edition and get hooked, you never know. I do know I'll be playing Pathfinder for a loooong time.
I liked Pathfinder a lot, too. It introduced a lot of new takes on the original 3.X material -- some of the best of which have been incorporated into 5th Edition D&D. Which is a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not more balanced?
Look at the average Will saves of a level 20 Pathfinder Cleric and a level 20 Pathfinder Rogue.
Now look at the Wisdom saves of a level 20 5th Edition Cleric and a level 20 5th Edition Rogue.
What was that about balance again?
You. Look at the post right bellow:
Not more balanced?
Look at the average Will saves of a level 20 Pathfinder Cleric and a level 20 Pathfinder Rogue.
Now look at the Wisdom saves of a level 20 5th Edition Cleric and a level 20 5th Edition Rogue.
What was that about balance again?
Uh...both are 6 points different. Plus the stat differences. A 20th level 5th Ed. character has a +6 Proficiency Bonus, which the Cleric adds to Wis Saves and the Rogue doesn't.
The only real difference is in magic items, and is because we don't have any rules for such items from the free 5th Ed. PDF. So...that means basically nothing.
You can believe what you want, but argueing about it on these forums (and even the wrong forum inside this forum) won't get you anywhere. Arguing that Pathfinder is dying on the Pathfinder board is pointless.
Also I flagged your initial post for being in the wrong section. Adventure paths have nothing to do with rules bloat. Hopefully this thread will go where it belongs, or go to the same place all your other threads go.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core line is only getting better. Yeah, I'm buying less than I did when I first got into Pathfinder, but things have improved so much since then. People should really spend less time theorycrafting and more time actually playing the game.
Last year one of my players stepped forward and wanted to try their hand at GMing. This would've been a nightmare with 3.5, but the transition was almost seamless. Having a grounded, mature group also helped. I've seen both ends of the spectrum and I don't see any problems with any of the base classes (from alchemists to wizards) that can't be sorted out when said issues come up at the table.*
*Maybe our situation is different: no PFS invisible walls, nonlinear campaigns, and everyone knows each other's general preferences and what to avoid.
edition war threads are fun! so short lived! "tis better to burn out then to fade away"
still haven't heard what this has to do with adventure paths, maybe this Werebat troll can explain it before his (yet another!) bait thread is shut down
and yes Ben, i also flagged it:) like as soon as it popped up yesterday
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is degenerating into an edition war, which isn't allowed here.
by the way, i Love this policy, it elmininates so much useless arguing and insults, which the internet could definetly use less of, in al honesty the internet has become that family member that you argue with every time you see him/her/shim even tho you dont know or even remember why.
Level 20th character?! All of the Adventure Path except Wrath of the Righteous end well before 20th level. Sorry, but really, if you are playing a 20th level character, what do you expect? its going to be "nigh-on-invulnerable" in any system.
Regarding too much complexity. Maybe Paizo needs to issue a basic game with striped down rules and options for newbies.
They have that. It's called: The Core Rulebook. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have that. It's called: The Core Rulebook. ^_^Level 20th character?! All of the Adventure Path except Wrath of the Righteous end well before 20th level. Sorry, but really, if you are playing a 20th level character, what do you expect? its going to be "nigh-on-invulnerable" in any system.
Regarding too much complexity. Maybe Paizo needs to issue a basic game with striped down rules and options for newbies.
Beginner's Box.
|
|
Nothing that has been published since Pathfinder Core, with the *possible* exception of the Summoner and/or Arcanist, can break the game more than a Core Rulebook Wizard.Quoth the munchkin, "Wizard's core!"
As I said before, 5e seems to have dealt with CoDzilla (and to a certain extent his Arcane cousin) by limiting casters to being able to focus on one buff at a time, and having those buffs "dispel" if they are hit in melee and fail a concentration check.
Huh? Where's that said? The only reference I can find (on p. 81) says that different magical effects stack fine, with only the same specific effect not stacking with itself. And most of them lack a Concentration duration as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? Where's that said? The only reference I can find (on p. 81) says that different magical effects stack fine, with only the same specific effect not stacking with itself. And most of them lack a Concentration duration as well.
As I said before, 5e seems to have dealt with CoDzilla (and to a certain extent his Arcane cousin) by limiting casters to being able to focus on one buff at a time, and having those buffs "dispel" if they are hit in melee and fail a concentration check.
Page 80 very clearly states that you cannot concentrate on more than one spell at a time. The majority of the buff spells (like Fly and Blur) require Concentration.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 80 very clearly states that you cannot concentrate on more than one spell at a time. The majority of the buff spells (like Fly and Blur) require Concentration.Huh? Where's that said? The only reference I can find (on p. 81) says that different magical effects stack fine, with only the same specific effect not stacking with itself. And most of them lack a Concentration duration as well.
As I said before, 5e seems to have dealt with CoDzilla (and to a certain extent his Arcane cousin) by limiting casters to being able to focus on one buff at a time, and having those buffs "dispel" if they are hit in melee and fail a concentration check.
That's Concentration duration spells only. And, actually, true of Concentration spells in Pathfinder as well. The only difference is that several more (by no means all) buffs are Concentration in 5th Ed. Aid, Freedom of Movement, Heroes Feast, Mage Armor, Spiritual Weapon, are all rather definitively not, for example.
But Magic Weapon is now a concentration spell. . . want to bet how often that spell gets used?
My guess is zero times ever.
Ah yes, they have nerfed casters by taking away. . . Magic Weapon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without comparing to 5E (which I have zero interest in), I do agree that Pathfinder is putting out too much in regards to player oriented crunch. I despise everything the ACG is doing, though unchained doesn't bother me.
I just wish the modules would go back to monthly, even if it meant going back to the smaller format.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still haven't heard what this has to do with Adventure Paths?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's Concentration duration spells only. And, actually, true of Concentration spells in Pathfinder as well. The only difference is that several more (by no means all) buffs are Concentration in 5th Ed. Aid, Freedom of Movement, Heroes Feast, Mage Armor, Spiritual Weapon, are all rather definitively not, for example.
Page 80 very clearly states that you cannot concentrate on more than one spell at a time. The majority of the buff spells (like Fly and Blur) require Concentration.
I think you are misrepresenting things more than a little (not as much as the person who claimed that the only spell affected by this was Magic Weapon, but still).
These spells in the Basic 5e rule set are Concentration spells (note that the Basic rule set available for free does not contain all of the spells that will be in the PHB):
Antimagic Field
Arcane Eye
Beacon of Hope
Blade Barrier
Bless
Blur
Dancing Lights
Darkness
Delayed Blast Fireball
Detect Magic
Dominate Monster
Dominate Person
Earthquake
Find the Path
Faerie Fire
Flaming Sphere
Fly
Gate
Globe of Invulnerability
Greater Invisibility
Guidance
Haste
Hold Person
Holy Aura
Invisibility
Levitate
Locate Creature
Magic Weapon
Major Image
Maze
Otto's Irresistible Dance
Protection From Energy
Shield of Faith
Silence
Silent Image
Spider Climb
Spirit Guardians
Stoneskin
Suggestion
Wall of Stone
Web
A 5e caster can only keep ONE of these spells up at a time. So, no Fly and Invisibility at the same time, for example.
That is slightly more of a significant change than losing Magic Weapon, I think.
I still haven't heard what this has to do with Adventure Paths?
Yeah, I accidentally put it in the wrong area. If it really bothers you, you should probably ask a moderator to move it.
I do agree that Pathfinder is putting out too much in regards to player oriented crunch. I despise everything the ACG is doing, though unchained doesn't bother me.
And we've seen this before, with 3.5. We know where it led.
For what it's worth WotC has formally stated that they plan to produce less "crunch" and more material that sure sounds a lot like Adventure Paths.
In short, they seem to have been watching Paizo, and taking notes.
All of this is good for us, the consumers/players.
It is simply my observation that certain patterns we have seen before are coming around again. And we'll see them yet again, in time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are misrepresenting things more than a little (not as much as the person who claimed that the only spell affected by this was Magic Weapon, but still).
You made a statement that characters were limited to one buff spell...which is false. I was providing counterexamples proving that point, not trying to claim a lot of buff spells weren't Concentration duration.
These spells in the Basic 5e rule set are Concentration spells:
Yeah...but far from all of those are buff spells (which is what we were talking about), and several you list are Concentration duration even in Pathfinder to boot.
A 5e caster can only keep ONE of these spells up at a time. So, no Fly and Invisibility at the same time, for example.
That is slightly more of a significant change than losing Magic Weapon, I think.
It's slightly misleading to say that. Neither spell is self-only, so with two spellcasters you can indeed have both on one person. That said, yes, it cuts down on spell buffs somewhat...but given the very short and preliminary spell list, it's anyone's guess whether that'll stay true even once the corebook is out.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that Pathfinder is putting out too much in regards to player oriented crunch. I despise everything the ACG is doing, though unchained doesn't bother me.
And we've seen this before, with 3.5. We know where it led.
For what it's worth WotC has formally stated that they plan to produce less "crunch" and more material that sure sounds a lot like Adventure Paths.
In short, they seem to have been watching Paizo, and taking notes.
All of this is good for us, the consumers/players.
It is simply my observation that certain patterns we have seen before are coming around again. And we'll see them yet again, in time.
You know, I still remember all those "business prophets" who declared that Paizo is going to go bankrupt by 2009 and have their assets sold to Necromancer Games for silly money in order to pay the overdue rent. Because, you know, repeating patterns and so on.
So I'd be careful with divination.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC seems to be in a place closer to (but not quite as bad as) White Wolf/Onyx Path. A small dedicated team trying to salvage a brand ruined by corporates and owned by a company that doesn't really care about them.
I don't agree with every Paizo decision (Pathfinder Online, ACG, monthly companions/quarterly modules) but at least Lisa doesn't plan on selling to some publicly traded monster
That's Concentration duration spells only. And, actually, true of Concentration spells in Pathfinder as well. The only difference is that several more (by no means all) buffs are Concentration in 5th Ed. Aid, Freedom of Movement, Heroes Feast, Mage Armor, Spiritual Weapon, are all rather definitively not, for example.
Page 80 very clearly states that you cannot concentrate on more than one spell at a time. The majority of the buff spells (like Fly and Blur) require Concentration.I think you are misrepresenting things more than a little (not as much as the person who claimed that the only spell affected by this was Magic Weapon, but still).
These spells in the Basic 5e rule set are Concentration spells (note that the Basic rule set available for free does not contain all of the spells that will be in the PHB):
A 5e caster can only keep ONE of these spells up at a time. So, no Fly and Invisibility at the same time, for example.
That is slightly more of a significant change than losing Magic Weapon, I think.
I never said it ONLY affected Magic Weapon.
I think my point was that no one in the history of ever would choose to have Magic Weapon be the one spell they have up. . . it makes no sense why it would be a concentration spell, nor do half of the ones there.
Combined with the fact that you can still cast spells, just not other spells that require concentration its just a bizarre system to go along with the overly complicated feel of 5th edition.
|
|
WotC seems to be in a place closer to (but not quite as bad as) White Wolf/Onyx Path. A small dedicated team trying to salvage a brand ruined by corporates and owned by a company that doesn't really care about them.
I don't agree with every Paizo decision (Pathfinder Online, ACG, monthly companions/quarterly modules) but at least Lisa doesn't plan on selling to some publicly traded monster
Curious why you dont like ACG but are fine with unchained? Also, whats wrong with PF online?
These spells in the Basic 5e rule set are Concentration spells:Yeah...but far from all of those are buff spells (which is what we were talking about), and several you list are Concentration duration even in Pathfinder to boot.
I never said that they were all buff spells. However, they are all relevant to a discussion about the limitations placed on buff spells in 5e because a caster can't have any two of the spells on that list up at the same time. Thus, I included all spells that required concentration, even those that are not technically buffs.
It's slightly misleading to say that. Neither spell is self-only, so with two spellcasters you can indeed have both on one person. That said, yes, it cuts down on spell buffs somewhat...but given the very short and preliminary spell list, it's anyone's guess whether that'll stay true even once the corebook is out.A 5e caster can only keep ONE of these spells up at a time. So, no Fly and Invisibility at the same time, for example.
That is slightly more of a significant change than losing Magic Weapon, I think.
I think what we have seen so far is that 5e cuts down on spell buffs a bit more than "somewhat".
You're right about the possibility of stacking buffs on one person, but that doesn't really change the fact that buffs are very restricted in 5e as compared to PF. Two casters could work together to put Fly and Greater Invisibility on the Fighter, for example, but they would have to forego maintenance of any other concentration spells in order to do so.
And don't forget that every time said casters get hit in combat, they have to succeed at die rolls or lose concentration (and the spells they were concentrating on).
The bottom line here is that what we are seeing is a great change from 3.5 and PF, where high level characters spend much of their working days as "Christmas trees" decked out with buffs. I think this is a good thing.
Curious why you dont like ACG but are fine with unchained? Also, whats wrong with PF online?WotC seems to be in a place closer to (but not quite as bad as) White Wolf/Onyx Path. A small dedicated team trying to salvage a brand ruined by corporates and owned by a company that doesn't really care about them.
I don't agree with every Paizo decision (Pathfinder Online, ACG, monthly companions/quarterly modules) but at least Lisa doesn't plan on selling to some publicly traded monster
PF Online is something wholly separate from Pathfinder. Not sure I plan to play it when it comes out, but what it is/isn't has no real bearing on the pen and paper world at all. . .
|
|
PF Online is something wholly separate from Pathfinder. Not sure I plan to play it when it comes out, but what it is/isn't has no real bearing on the pen and paper world at all. . .Curious why you dont like ACG but are fine with unchained? Also, whats wrong with PF online?WotC seems to be in a place closer to (but not quite as bad as) White Wolf/Onyx Path. A small dedicated team trying to salvage a brand ruined by corporates and owned by a company that doesn't really care about them.
I don't agree with every Paizo decision (Pathfinder Online, ACG, monthly companions/quarterly modules) but at least Lisa doesn't plan on selling to some publicly traded monster
Yeah I am aware of that but Coridan might not be.
I do agree that Pathfinder is putting out too much in regards to player oriented crunch. I despise everything the ACG is doing, though unchained doesn't bother me.
And we've seen this before, with 3.5. We know where it led.
For what it's worth WotC has formally stated that they plan to produce less "crunch" and more material that sure sounds a lot like Adventure Paths.
In short, they seem to have been watching Paizo, and taking notes.
All of this is good for us, the consumers/players.
It is simply my observation that certain patterns we have seen before are coming around again. And we'll see them yet again, in time.
You know, I still remember all those "business prophets" who declared that Paizo is going to go bankrupt by 2009 and have their assets sold to Necromancer Games for silly money in order to pay the overdue rent. Because, you know, repeating patterns and so on.
So I'd be careful with divination.
First, I never said I expected Paizo to go under. You brought that up just now, yourself.
Second, exactly what am I risking in my "divination" that I need to be so careful about it? If a few more years pass and Paizo doesn't come out with a new edition of Pathfinder (or a "3.5" style revision to "tighten up" the rules from the various supplements), you can come back here and point out how wrong I was. But I don't think you'll even be able to do that.
Look -- game systems get created, they get bloated, and they get rehashed. You can try to deny that all you like, but it won't change the fact that it happens.
PF is growing into another stage in its cycle. It's next incarnation won't come this year, or next, but it will come.
My observation -- and I recognize that I'm something of a canary in a coal mine here, because some of the players I game with tend to stretch the bounds of optimization and necessitate more "powergamer-proof" systems -- is that PF is rapidly gaining weight that will ultimately have to be shed by the creation of a new edition.
Again, you can feel free to come back here in a few years and point out how wrong I was if Paizo keeps piling on new supplements and never reboots.
Rebooting is the only way they will risk going under. Pathfinder built their business model on continuity; throwing that away and there is nothing left to be loyal to.
I expect that 9/10 people who play pathfinder today won't play PF 2.0. . . people who wanted the same game won't go to the new one, the trolls who call for it won't go when they realize its not exactly their vision of the game and all their hand wringing about wizards wasn't heeded.
All Paizo has to keep doing is publishing Adventure paths for the current game and they will keep their audience.
Why on earth would they do something to risk that by pushing the rest button?
They aren't getting anther 40$ per book for me for PF core 2, Ultimate combat rehash, ultimate magic rehash, four more bestiaries of the same monsters updated to the new system. . .
But they probably will get my 40$ per book for Bestiary 6-8 with new stuff, and Ultimate Whatever is next that isn't just a revision.