Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel that comparing a single player's handbook to Pathfinder in general is a fair comparison. The Player Handbook 5e, no DMG, MM, or various splat books...compared to Pathfinder.
As I mentioned earlier, my observations haven't been based just on the new PHB against the entirety of Pathfinder, but in a direct comparison to the prior 2 editions PHB's and the CRB.
Of course Pathfinder has a ton more options, that's what all the additional books did. I personally like the background/race variations and can see gigantic future options to be released.
Another thing is that I do agree that the mechanics seem simpler, and this is something that I see as a positive thing. I am currently tired of high level combat in Pathfinder and would rather never do it again. It shouldn't take an hour to get through an encounter that lasts 5 round IMO, and even if you take pains to streamline combat it still takes about that long. I want a simpler game system and I think that 5e may provide that depending on how they move forward with splat books.I look forward to the changes and don't curse 5e for not being Pathfinder....I want something different. If Pathfinder makes a version 2 then I will be looking at it to also be different.
For me, much like when 4e came out, I'm just going to need to look at it as as a new and different game for different situations. Like I said, I think it'll be a great option for getting new players who haven't had a chance to play an RPG before to get familiar with the basic ideas. I'm going to be more selective in my purchases with this new edition though, as paying $100 to get less content than is contained in the CRB is a bit of a stretch for me. Like I said previously, for me the fact that they left room to charge me more money for things that could have been part of the initial release is a negative, not a positive.
Still, the artwork is beautiful, the adventure so far seems really well executed, and they've done a number of things that I think are really smart and cool.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something people keep mentioning is that 5e has a reduced sense of complexity compared to its predecessors. I don't think this is actually true. I think 5e has exactly the same level of complexity compared to its predecessors. What has gone away is the fake complexity.
Consider a theoretical game system where at any given point in character progression, the player has twenty options of how they will proceed, and every one of those options leads to twenty more, largely distinct, options at the next point in progression. Sounds complex, doesn't it? What if I told you that, at any given point in progression, only three of those twenty options were even worth considering? In essence, this means that you don't actually have twenty options. You have three. Additionally, the more you progress, the more transparent the distinction between useful and useless options becomes more apparent, and you eventually reach the point where, for any given decision, there's really only one choice. So, your visibly robust and complex system is actually insanely simple, but the appearance of complexity exists either to lie to its customers or to trip up people who don't know any better.
With this in mind, take a game that only has three choices at any point of progression, and the further along you are, the fewer options there are. This system is no less complex than the previous one, but it doesn't inflate its complexity with a bunch of fake decisions. Because when it comes down to it, complexity is about decisions and how they affect the game. Pathfinder is not actually a complex system, because after the first few levels, almost all of the decisions you are prompted to make have very few "good" options. If you're looking for the best possible choices to make, you'd waste less time letting the game decide your progress for you than having a wade through a bunch of worthless options looking for the two or three that are actually a benefit for you.
5e is exactly as complex a system as Pathfinder so far, except that it...
Then ranged damage dealers in 5e have one option: 2 levels of warlock and then 18 levels of eldritch knight fighter.
The two levels of Warlock allow you to pick up eldritch blast (which will scale with all your levels) and add charisma to damage. This will eventually get you four lazer beams at level 17 (for 1d10+5 force damage each) and then you can make a ranged attack with a crossbow with a bonus action for 1d10+5. It is the only way to get 5 ranged attacks with a single bonus action in the game and it does more damage than even the melee equivalent (4 attacks with a fighter at level 20 and then a bonus attack with an offhand weapon).
My point is: there are optimal decisions in even simple games. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that pathfinder and 5e are "exactly as complex". See my earlier response to Kaiser. Spell casters choose fewer spells and most classes have builds that are built around exactly one choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something people keep mentioning is that 5e has a reduced sense of complexity compared to its predecessors. I don't think this is actually true. I think 5e has exactly the same level of complexity compared to its predecessors. What has gone away is the fake complexity.
Consider a theoretical game system where at any given point in character progression, the player has twenty options of how they will proceed, and every one of those options leads to twenty more, largely distinct, options at the next point in progression. Sounds complex, doesn't it? What if I told you that, at any given point in progression, only three of those twenty options were even worth considering? In essence, this means that you don't actually have twenty options. You have three. Additionally, the more you progress, the more transparent the distinction between useful and useless options becomes more apparent, and you eventually reach the point where, for any given decision, there's really only one choice. So, your visibly robust and complex system is actually insanely simple, but the appearance of complexity exists either to lie to its customers or to trip up people who don't know any better.
Whether you call it complexity or something else, if there are a lot of choices that result in players not having fun with their characters, that's a huge problem.
I love it, though. I don't play pathfinder to play the "best" builds. I play it to play "my" builds and there are dozens that I have yet to get a chance to play. However, even conceiving of them was a source of enjoyment.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love it, though. I don't play pathfinder to play the "best" builds. I play it to play "my" builds and there are dozens that I have yet to get a chance to play. However, even conceiving of them was a source of enjoyment.
Whether you call it complexity or something else, if there are a lot of choices that result in players not having fun with their characters, that's a huge problem.
I'm in this same boat. I like having a robust variety of options. I don't want to play a Fighter, I want to play maneuver specialist who uses dirty tricks to disable his foes and wields a bec de corbin that his father left him before getting killed in the war. And I like being able to mechanically quantify those aspects of my character with feats and traits. If I'm playing an apprentice blacksmith who struck out on his own, I like seeing my character get better and better at blacksmithing, rather than just having it be a story component of "you said you're a blacksmith so you can do pretty much whatever blacksmithy stuff you want as long as your GM is cool with it".
I also love it when I get to bring disparate elements together into a functional whole. The Cavalier is one of my favorite classes because I am always finding all kinds of cool ways to utilize Teamwork feats to amplify the teamwork and techniques my party uses. Sometimes I feel like a game that is too simple actually discourages teamwork. In PF, my group has probably learned more about real teamwork than we ever really explored in other editions. PF taught me that teamwork isn't a wizard casting fly so the Fighter can reach his opponents, it's the Ranger sneaking into the middle of the enemy before they have time to take off and tempting them into ganging up to try and finish him off and then using evasion to avoid the fireball the invisible wizard had readied. Teamwork is you + me = 2.5 people, us being greater than the sum of our individual parts, and I think that gets lost a bit in more simplified systems.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love it, though. I don't play pathfinder to play the "best" builds. I play it to play "my" builds and there are dozens that I have yet to get a chance to play. However, even conceiving of them was a source of enjoyment.
It'd be even better if those builds were viable, and didn't out of necessity have to include many trap options, wouldn't it?
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love it, though. I don't play pathfinder to play the "best" builds. I play it to play "my" builds and there are dozens that I have yet to get a chance to play. However, even conceiving of them was a source of enjoyment.It'd be even better if those builds were viable, and didn't out of necessity have to include many trap options, wouldn't it?
The messageboards have badly distorted the definitions of "viable" and "trap option". Unless you're a Rogue, there are actually very few trap options in PF, and most of them get fixed when the design team realizes they goofed (like Prone Shooter). There are a lot of situational feats that may not be ideal for your specific playstyle, but which are actually pretty useful and handy in a game that supports them (like the siege gunner or chariot feats). I think it is a positive thing when a game has enough complexity at its core to support a variety of playstyles.
I love it, though. I don't play pathfinder to play the "best" builds. I play it to play "my" builds and there are dozens that I have yet to get a chance to play. However, even conceiving of them was a source of enjoyment.It'd be even better if those builds were viable, and didn't out of necessity have to include many trap options, wouldn't it?
Hypothetically yes, but without all the options there would not be as much room to find new builds to begin with. Perhaps there is a hypothetically "perfect" game for me where there are hundreds of options that can be combined together in some broadly limited/themed ways and what came out from combining these rules would always be fun and interesting. That is to say that there could exist a game where there is discovery in finding new builds and exploring new mechanics that also has no "weak" builds. I don't think that game will ever exist though.
Something that could work like that in the 5e framework could be a system where there are dozens of per-balanced archetypes per class (of which there would probably be many) and you would just choose from that vast list. Even that is going to end up having a lot of traps as that many classes will lead to stinkers and superstars the second anyone gets lazy (in the 5e context: note that building a warlock around his pact sword or chain ability is doomed to failure by around level 11 where you will commence your grand apotheosis into Blastar: King of Lazers like every other warlock if you want to stay combat relevant). However, even then I would miss the opportunity o find my own fun builds.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will be buying 5e simply because after reading the basic rules it seems like the best way to go when I want to run a no-grid, fast moving throwback to the games I played and enjoyed in first edition with fewer trips to the rulebook required. 3.5 and Pathfinder especially are not conducive to a grid-less game, in my opinion, and you are therefore chained to a map.
When I first began playing using first edition, we never had a grid or map, rarely referenced a rulebook, and the "builds" we had were just our characters and the way we played them. That was what I fell in love with.
When I play PF, it is a totally different experience. I enjoy it of course, but it is definitely different. I love the complexity and variety, but I don't care how much system mastery you have, the more comlplex the game, the slower it becomes.
I think WotC made a great call with this new edition...if you want to sell more than McDonalds, you don't make more hamburgers, you make subs.
And yes, I hated fourth edition.
I will be buying 5e simply because after reading the basic rules it seems like the best way to go when I want to run a no-grid, fast moving throwback to the games I played and enjoyed in first edition with fewer trips to the rulebook required. 3.5 and Pathfinder especially are not conducive to a grid-less game, in my opinion, and you are therefore chained to a map.
When I first began playing using first edition, we never had a grid or map, rarely referenced a rulebook, and the "builds" we had were just our characters and the way we played them. That was what I fell in love with.
When I play PF, it is a totally different experience. I enjoy it of course, but it is definitely different. I love the complexity and variety, but I don't care how much system mastery you have, the more comlplex the game, the slower it becomes.
I think WotC made a great call with this new edition...if you want to sell more than McDonalds, you don't make more hamburgers, you make subs.
And yes, I hated fourth edition.
I am really going to agree with you on like 5e for a simple game. I honestly don't think I am going to play a retro-clone or otherwise simplified iteration of D&D (13th age, dungeon world, Legend that is not the Legend that is a sequel to Runequest) for a really long time now.
That is really what I want to get at: what makes pathfinder special to me is the level of complexity that is there. And I guess I am just trying to say that I would be really disappointed in Pathfinder pursuing a design philosophy that prioritizes simplicity over player choice or the pursuit of new and interesting mechanics; the magus's casting and the investigator's new studied combat or whatever really excite me for instance; I like having interesting new mechanics.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see simplicity in combat/gameplay mechanics and simplicity of class/race/backgrounds as being an either or thing...pathfinder2 and 5e could both be a very simple game mechanics and play-wise but still have a broad range of options for people playing in the character design realm. It doesn't need to be one or the other: simple game or complex game.
Simple game/complex character design is what I am looking for.
5E has the path setup to where I can see a huge amount of variety in character creation with class/race/background variations. It may be a bit lacking now but so was D&D3.5 with only the PHB. You gained variety with the DMG and other supplements but the PHB was very limited in scope.
Pathfinder's Core Rulebook is different in that you have a combined PHB/DMG+ in there. I would guess that when the 5e DMG is added to the PHB the options are going to start seeing more depth....and so on with each supplement, just like Pathfinder adds depth with APG, ACG, ARG, and the ultimate line.
I see a ton of potential variety in 5E and love the streamlined system. Now I just gotta hope they don't drop the ball or lose focus on the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The satisfaction you are experiencing it's purposefully made, as explaneid in this article
@ the OP: I am sure they will have more feats in later books. I will let 5E get setup for a year before I look at it. By then it will have time to choose which direction it will go in. It also will give me a chance to see fan reaction to how they put out errata and other things.
I would have done the same thing for Pathfinder but the person GM'ing really pushed for it, and it grew on me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The satisfaction you are experiencing it's purposefully made, as explaneid in this articleMonte later stated that, in hindsight, this was a horrible idea and that no game should ever be built around the idea of setting landmines for new players. You can tell when a design philosophy is bad when one of its biggest supporters admits that he was an idiot for using it.
True fact about Monte Cook: I don't think he is that great of a game designer.
I admire all his ambition more than I care to explain here, but I honestly kind of hate Numenera. It tried to do a lot of what 5e is doing (defining characters from a short list of key features) but actually does it worse, with very weak balance, unintuitive die mechanics, and unsatisfying combat rules. Before anyone responds to that point, let me assure you that I know why he made those design decisions; I just don't like the final product.
That aside:
I think it is the "combination of rules" design approach that is keeping pathfinder alive and the most popular table top rpg. Why are you playing it otherwise? I can recommend dozens of games to people that do a 100 different things. Why stay with pathfinder if not for the complexity? (I am excited to see what people say to this)
I think the best version of a game should not have "timmy card" rules, though. That is dumb. Building your game around letting players search through rules combinations is what cool guys and ladies do, though.
@ the OP: I am sure they will have more feats in later books. I will let 5E get setup for a year before I look at it. By then it will have time to choose which direction it will go in. It also will give me a chance to see fan reaction to how they put out errata and other things.
I would have done the same thing for Pathfinder but the person GM'ing really pushed for it, and it grew on me.
The problem is not that there aren't enough feats. The problem is that no build will have more than two or three of these feats. The core conceits of character building are really unsatisfying to me. Maybe some of the alternate rules in the DMG will do something for it, but that is not really the same as having satisfying rules to begin with. I don't want the rules to a game to have been a round of "mother may I" in order to be satisfying. If I wanted that, then I would do a forum text rpg or some such thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group sticks with Pathfinder primarily because...That's our game.
Yeah there are plenty of others out there that do different things better or worse but my entire group knows Pathfinder. 1st to 2nd to 3rd to pathfinder. It was a progression of each step building on what came before and we've been with it that for the most part we know the various ins and outs even when minor system tweaks and changes come in.
We didn't go to 4E because it didn't feel like there was any connections to the games we had played before. For all intents and purposes 4E was an entirly new game with the name D&D slapped on the cover. We had no interest in a NEW game. We wanted our current game upgraded and improved.
and that is what we still want. 5E is not an upgraded or improved version of Pathfinder. It's a similar game but compaired to Pathfinder the system feels like they went backwards several paces and then went down a different road.
We like Pathfinder, we are comfortable with Pathfinder and as long as Pathfinder continues to build on the game we enjoy we will stick with it. If Pathfinder 2E comes along and tries to be a whole different game instead of building on what came before, Odds are my group won't go for it.
|
|
There is welcome complexity:
Every character is unique and has its own path to power, either through feat, spell, skill or class feature choices.
There is unwelcome complexity:
Ability scores, are basically unnecessary. Ability MODs are what almost everything in the game (except Carrying capacity, bonus spells and ability damage/drain) keys off. NPCs working off the same classes makes NPC building a lengthy chore.
I think there's plenty of places Pathfinder could simplify, but my desire for simplification (particularly of high level play) doesn't outweigh my fear of homogenisation (which is a bit of what I didn't like in 4th Ed (all classes basically the same) and 5th Ed (not enough diversity in each class)).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I see people saying they don't like is the optional feats rule. I actually support it because, in my experience with new players, keeping race and class features straight, and feats piled on top of that can be a bit overwhelming. Giving the option of complexity, while not requiring it allows the system to be enjoyed by players of all experience. That was one thing I actually enjoyed about 4e. You could pick it up and brew up a character fairly quickly. 3.X can take some time to pick up, or requires the aid of an experienced player. 4e and, from what I have seen thus far 5e, you can teach yourself, alone or in a group, comparatively quickly. Just my 2cp
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is the "combination of rules" design approach that is keeping pathfinder alive and the most popular table top rpg. Why are you playing it otherwise?
I think it's the fact that Paizo puts out adventures and a setting that are pretty good. Take Golarion and the APs away, and Pathfinder would have been just another one of the myriad d20 fantasy variants that nobody really gave a damn about.
As for why play it...some groups unfortunately seem resistant to change, or even trying out something new. Why play another game when we can just play Pathfinder?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For all intents and purposes 4E was an entirly new game with the name D&D slapped on the cover. We had no interest in a NEW game. We wanted our current game upgraded and improved.
You realize that's exactly the same sentiment that many had when 3e came out, right? 4e wasn't the first time they had dumped virtually everything about the previous system.
To me, reading through the 5e Basic Rules, it seemed like D&D was actually back again after a 14 year absence. To me, 5e feels more like D&D than 3.0, 3.5, 4e, or Pathfinder ever managed.
Well I'm mainly not playing much 5e because I'm invested in Pathfinder and would want to put money I spent to work than play a new game. Not to mention the stuff coming out throughout the fall that would leave little money for 5e books.
As for judging the system for lack of flexibility; I like 5e as a system however it being a very kit-based system is a little turn-off until I see a ton more backgrounds or feats. or some sort of OGL.
|
Some folks like vanilla, some folks like super-minty-double-fudge-chunk. I have only seen the playtest materials and the basic set. A friend of mine, who was very excited about 5e got the starter set and said he was disappointed by it, but he has been playing D&D for almost 30 years, so he didn't need the hand-holding approach that he felt like it gave. He is still going to run some adventures and maybe the Tyranny of Dragons adventures. I will play, but I will continue to run pathfinder and will try to sway the group to stick with it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Neither system was built for every player or D/GM. Some folks will prefer the simplified "proficiency bonus" mechanic, but I hate it. I built a mountain dwarf wizard who could wear medium armor, and hit as well as a fighter of the same level, then add the spells on top of that. We have yet to play a single session, but I already feel like I broke the game with only the basic rules. Maybe I am wrong, but with Pathfinder I feel like if I am going to get massive bonuses somewhere, I should lose out somewhere else. I also dislike the skills/proficiency system, but again, I have only seen the basic set and the playtest materials. It could be great, it could be awful. Either way, so folks will prefer the simplicity and the "back to a simpler way" play-style. So far I do not, but as many of you have said, there is a lot more to come, so we shall see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OGL is important.
But wait until you see the DMG, it's described as the Hacker's Guide to the D&D game (5th Edition).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?
If it allows an easier entry point for new players into the RPG hobby, rather than computer based RPG's, then WotC gets the thumbs up from me.
I think Paizo is awesome also, but there is no comparison between Pathfinder and 5e other than they are both fantasy RPG's. They aren't in competition as they don't 'do' the same things, they are merely different ways of telling shared fantasy stories.
Glad BOTH games are going to be on the market.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that everyone gets a lot of free feats by 3rd ed standards. You get dex to hit and damage, you can move your full movement after attacking and in between attacks and anyone can dual wield at no penalty. Thats more or less 5 or 6 feats right there for everyone at level 1 and a few classes also get virtual feats as well like Rogues getting spring attack at level 3 more or less or the choice of doubling their movement or using an item as bonus actions.
If you purged some of the 4E ideas out of 5E and used 3.x as a baseline and used AD&D/5E math I think you would have a very good version of D&D.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of complexity, I think that a couple of small changes (that might be hard to implement) would go a long way to decreasing the amount of fluff in Pathfinder and in 3.X.
- Making sure to use identical language for identical effects would go a long way to simplifying the game. At least for the effect of abilities. I enjoy crazy fluff.
- In that same vein: A more clear separation of fluff and mechanics in how rules text is presented. I'm still a firm believer that the best mechanics are ones that best match and make effective the fluff they are tied to.
- Completely removing unnecessary subsystems: I know why SLAs exist (so monster without hands can have spells), but they also seem completely unnecessary at the same time.
- The weapons and armor table: This stuff could easily be condensed.
- A continued streamlining of existing systems. Like skills: Things like Knowledge Geography, Nature, and Survival could probably be rolled into one skill. Knowledge Nobility and History could probably be combined. Etc.
- Feats need to be reexamined in how they are used. They've become less of a set of abilities to customize your character, and more a set of labyrinthian paths that a character can walk down to get to a specific point.
As someone who can actually enjoy a rules-heavy/rules-medium/complex game, Pathfinder just has a ton of (somewhat inherited) garbage laying around, only serving to make the whole house smell. Just clearing out all of that would do a ton of good for the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in a "retro" mood for the last few months and have been looking at various clone systems. Having only flipped through and skimming parts of the PHB, and reading the free download, I do have to say I'm impressed. While I'll never stop playing PF, and likely won't invest in 5e, I'd be more than happy to jump into a game to try it out. I do think it will be a successful system, and that alone is something we should all be happy about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With 3.5 or pathfinder, If I dream up a character I would want to play, I can probably create it with the rules provided, the characters growth can also be mimicked using the rules.
In dnd 4th and 5th I feel its easier to play the character I've created. without having to worry about the growth.
I thinks its a matter of preference. And I can seriously understand people wanting the focus to be on other parts then character and rules complexity.
Personally I wouldn't dream of playing a game where I cannot create the story or journey I want for my characters. In that, I've felt that 4th and 5th are lacking.
It has heart but lacks soul.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Werewolf: Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing
damage from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered."
This pretty much sums up what I like they have done with 5th ed. The whole 'if I hit hard enough with a stick I can kill anything' of 3e/PF drives me nuts. I had zero issues with some creatures being almost unstoppable with the players were dumb enough to go against them unprepared. Running away IS a valid tactic.
This retro-rule alone means I will be giving 5th ed. a real good go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Werewolf: Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing
damage from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered."This pretty much sums up what I like they have done with 5th ed. The whole 'if I hit hard enough with a stick I can kill anything' of 3e/PF drives me nuts. I had zero issues with some creatures being almost unstoppable with the players were dumb enough to go against them unprepared. Running away IS a valid tactic.
This retro-rule alone means I will be giving 5th ed. a real good go.
Alternatively, you could just do what I and others have done: ignore the "house rules" introduced by Pathfinder that you disagree with. Pathfinder is just another 3rd party publisher with marketing good enough to convince folks it's somehow better than other 3rd party publishers, after all.
|
|
Alternatively, you could just do what I and others have done: ignore the "house rules" introduced by Pathfinder that you disagree with. Pathfinder is just another 3rd party publisher with marketing good enough to convince folks it's somehow better than other 3rd party publishers, after all."Werewolf: Damage Immunities bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing
damage from nonmagical weapons that aren’t silvered."This pretty much sums up what I like they have done with 5th ed. The whole 'if I hit hard enough with a stick I can kill anything' of 3e/PF drives me nuts. I had zero issues with some creatures being almost unstoppable with the players were dumb enough to go against them unprepared. Running away IS a valid tactic.
This retro-rule alone means I will be giving 5th ed. a real good go.
This is going to sound crazy to some - but I don't do house rules, never have. I either live with rules as RAW (and that can be grey enough) or play another game. If I'm going to house rule I'll use a game I have made.
This is going to sound crazy to some - but I don't do house rules, never have. I either live with rules as RAW (and that can be grey enough) or play another game. If I'm going to house rule I'll use a game I have made.
I used to do that, so you'll get no criticism from me. Ultimately, I found it was easier on me (in terms of time and effort expended) to just throw out and/or replace material that proved problematic.
I spend a majority of my time crafting setting specific material & fluff/lore that game design from the ground up is impractical for my purposes; I enjoy the d20 framework, overall.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With 3.5 or pathfinder, If I dream up a character I would want to play, I can probably create it with the rules provided, the characters growth can also be mimicked using the rules.
In dnd 4th and 5th I feel its easier to play the character I've created. without having to worry about the growth.
I thinks its a matter of preference. And I can seriously understand people wanting the focus to be on other parts then character and rules complexity.
Personally I wouldn't dream of playing a game where I cannot create the story or journey I want for my characters. In that, I've felt that 4th and 5th are lacking.
It has heart but lacks soul.
I can very easily reverse this by saying that the over abundance of rules sucks the soul out of pathfinder. Sure, there are options for a lot of concepts, but when you have to wait until level 10+ for your concept to actually be realized (because prestige classes, horrible feat chains, etc), it's almost as if the concept isn't really possible anyway.
What I like about more rules-light games is that the mechanics don't get in the way of playing the game or roleplaying. That's something that cannot honestly be claimed about more rules-heavy games like Pathfinder.
|
Design Manager
|
I don't feel like there's many concepts left that you have to wait to play (and I don't know that there were ever ones you had to wait until 10th level for). Certainly there aren't many, if any, concepts you can play in 5e right out the gate that you can't play in PF. Maybe the Arcane Trickster?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is the "combination of rules" design approach that is keeping pathfinder alive and the most popular table top rpg. Why are you playing it otherwise?I think it's the fact that Paizo puts out adventures and a setting that are pretty good. Take Golarion and the APs away, and Pathfinder would have been just another one of the myriad d20 fantasy variants that nobody really gave a damn about.
As for why play it...some groups unfortunately seem resistant to change, or even trying out something new. Why play another game when we can just play Pathfinder?
In this context: would you switch to pathfinder 2 if it were a simpler game? Would you switch to 5e rather than pathfinder 2 if 5e were still the simpler game?
And I could not disagree with you more for my preference set. I have not touched a pathfinder setting book. I generally write my own settings because I am cool and creative like that (as do all my friends who GM it; running adventures seems boring). As a player and GM, I come to pathfinder for the crunch and crunch alone.
I think your answer is interesting, though. I wonder how far adventure support carries a game. I wish I had access to Paizo's sales data. I want to run some regressions, yo.
I can very easily reverse this by saying that the over abundance of rules sucks the soul out of pathfinder. Sure, there are options for a lot of concepts, but when you have to wait until level 10+ for your concept to actually be realized (because prestige classes, horrible feat chains, etc), it's almost as if the concept isn't really possible anyway.What I like about more rules-light games is that the mechanics don't get in the way of playing the game or roleplaying. That's something that cannot honestly be claimed about more rules-heavy games like Pathfinder.
Do you think that maybe Fate or Fudge or Drunken Bear Fighter might be more your speed? How many more rules must you strip away before your horrible appetite is satisfied?
I don't feel like there's many concepts left that you have to wait to play (and I don't know that there were ever ones you had to wait until 10th level for). Certainly there aren't many, if any, concepts you can play in 5e right out the gate that you can't play in PF. Maybe the Arcane Trickster?
There is probably a good example somewhere but do arcane tricksters get any trickster-specific abilities before level 3? I don't think they do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel like there's many concepts left that you have to wait to play (and I don't know that there were ever ones you had to wait until 10th level for). Certainly there aren't many, if any, concepts you can play in 5e right out the gate that you can't play in PF. Maybe the Arcane Trickster?
Some of the more interesting martial feats are locked behind LONG feat chains and a bunch of other requirements. I can easily see some of those inspiring a concept...before the player realizes that they will be more than halfway through with the campaign before they manage to meet all the ridiculous prerequisites.
|
Design Manager
|
I don't feel like there's many concepts left that you have to wait to play (and I don't know that there were ever ones you had to wait until 10th level for). Certainly there aren't many, if any, concepts you can play in 5e right out the gate that you can't play in PF. Maybe the Arcane Trickster?Some of the more interesting martial feats are locked behind LONG feat chains and a bunch of other requirements. I can easily see some of those inspiring a concept...before the player realizes that they will be more than halfway through with the campaign before they manage to meet all the ridiculous prerequisites.
I'm just curious which feats those would be. Whirlwind Attack can be grabbed as early as 4th level, and that's one of the most ridiculously restricted feats available. I suppose there's a few feats in the style chains that are fairly high level if you're not a monk, but I can't think of any that are so iconic your character concept can't exist without them.
I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?
Probably because the 2nd edtion had problems. They were beautiful books. The 3rd edition offered new options and different problems.
If it allows an easier entry point for new players into the RPG hobby, rather than computer based RPG's, then WotC gets the thumbs up from me.
I think Paizo is awesome also, but there is no comparison between Pathfinder and 5e other than they are both fantasy RPG's. They aren't in competition as they don't 'do' the same things, they are merely different ways of telling shared fantasy stories.
Glad BOTH games are going to be on the market.
I agree. I'm not buying the 5th edition now. I might someday.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is probably a good example somewhere but do arcane tricksters get any trickster-specific abilities before level 3? I don't think they do.
In my opinion, Paizo should have dropped prestige classes the second the archetype idea took off and converted pre-existing prestige classes to archetypes to allow "from-the-get-go" playing of your concept. I like archetypes, though I understand many may not for whatever reasons.
I've done this for some prestige classes for my campaign setting (assassin, shadowdancer, and so on). It is tiresome work for one guy, but like you, I enjoy the crunch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to 3.5 and converting some of my favorite PrCs into PF Archetypes (or Archetype Packages, like Rite Publishing did, which could be applied to multiple base classes by giving a list of things from each class it would replace, so you're not necessarily locked into one class or the other to play a specific PrC) has been something on my long-term to-do list.
There is probably a good example somewhere but do arcane tricksters get any trickster-specific abilities before level 3? I don't think they do.In my opinion, Paizo should have dropped prestige classes the second the archetype idea took off and converted pre-existing prestige classes to archetypes to allow "from-the-get-go" playing of your concept. I like archetypes, though I understand many may not for whatever reasons.
I've done this for some prestige classes for my campaign setting (assassin, shadowdancer, and so on). It is tiresome work for one guy, but like you, I enjoy the crunch.
I am going to agree with you here more or less. There are a few prestige classes that are kind of fun and interesting but I think the archetype mechanic does that job really well already.
As for the arcane trickster: I really wanted there to be a class like that in the advanced class guide.
In terms of complexity, I think that a couple of small changes (that might be hard to implement) would go a long way to decreasing the amount of fluff in Pathfinder and in 3.X.
- Making sure to use identical language for identical effects would go a long way to simplifying the game. At least for the effect of abilities. I enjoy crazy fluff.
- In that same vein: A more clear separation of fluff and mechanics in how rules text is presented. I'm still a firm believer that the best mechanics are ones that best match and make effective the fluff they are tied to.
- Completely removing unnecessary subsystems: I know why SLAs exist (so monster without hands can have spells), but they also seem completely unnecessary at the same time.
- The weapons and armor table: This stuff could easily be condensed.
- A continued streamlining of existing systems. Like skills: Things like Knowledge Geography, Nature, and Survival could probably be rolled into one skill. Knowledge Nobility and History could probably be combined. Etc.
- Feats need to be reexamined in how they are used. They've become less of a set of abilities to customize your character, and more a set of labyrinthian paths that a character can walk down to get to a specific point.
As someone who can actually enjoy a rules-heavy/rules-medium/complex game, Pathfinder just has a ton of (somewhat inherited) garbage laying around, only serving to make the whole house smell. Just clearing out all of that would do a ton of good for the game.
I agree with you. There are some rough edges to the pathfinder system that could be sanded off. I kind of like all the feats, but I think there could stand to be more guidance on the parts of the game designers. There was an idea in the 5e playtest where a character could essentially choose between suite of feats for certain play styles. I liked that. It gave a player a guiding hand towards certain mechanical goals while giving "advanced" players the opportunity to take those same mechanics à la carte. I am actually really annoyed that they dropped that angle (along with a lot of ideas that I found interesting in the earlier days of the play test).
I also think that a 2e of pathfinder could have its math generally simplified and protracted in the way 5e D&D does (for instance "full base attack" does not need to be +20 at 20; it could be +10 with 3/4 being 7 and skills do not need to all have ranks equal to your level).
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's three main things I'm liking in 5E that I think could greatly benefit a Pathfinder 2E for me.
1. Minimize away-from-the-table effort
This is likely the most controversial one and it's one that I've changed my stance on somewhat over the past decade. Pathfinder offers a ton of options currently. When a character hits 3rd level, there is a lot of research you can do to make decisions about choosing your next feat. Certainly, if you're building an archer character (a halfling paladin archer was mentioned in the thread above), odds are pretty high that this feat is going to be Precise Shot or Rapid Shot at this point. In this case, it's not like you're going to spend hours looking at tons of options. But for a lot of characters, this may mean spending 3-4 hours pouring over Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, Advanced Race Guide, and much more (maybe the feat's going to be Pageant of Peacock from the Dragonslayer's Handbook).
A lot of players love this about Pathfinder. When you're at home by yourself and you're bored, you can invest hundreds of hours going through your books, PDFs, the SRD or HeroLab and "play" Pathfinder - the metagame away from the table. You could be playing with how certain traits, feats and class combinations interact or keep going through spell lists looking for something new.
Other gamers view this differently. Completely differently. They are willing to spend 5 hours a week at a table going through an adventure, but don't want to spend another 2-5 hours at home leveling up their character and looking through rules. They'd rather take those 2-5 hours and go surfing, golfing, volunteering, coaching their kid's soccer game, what-have-you. 5E at this stage is really great for hitting the sweet spot for these gamers as there is not a subtle push for them to invest a lot of non-adventuring hours sorting through the game's details. Perhaps this is totally different in 5 years, it will depend on how Wizards balances the game. At least at the current stage its at, there is not a lot of reason once you've learned the rules to spend dozens of hours "building characters" away from adventuring. It's all about going on adventures, and less about sorting through rules.
2. Minimize player power disparity, maximize teamwork
I imagine this is contentious as well. Among my groups of friends, I have players who will invest differently in the game rules when we aren't in an adventure. I have one player who will go through every trait, feat, ability and optimize their character. This is the guy who takes Magic Lineage, Wayang Spellhunter, Spell Specialization and he's running about at level 2 with a very powerful magus who can easily steal the show. I have other players (plural) who'd rather be golfing than building characters, so they quickly just pick a trait that sounds similar to their character background and are ready to go after 1 minute of being tasked with that decision.
At least in it's current form, 5e means that a table of 4-5 players will all have characters likely of the same power level, and there's a good chance that the characters will need to rely on each other more than a typical Pathfinder game. The power curve has changed dramatically where healing in combat is actually very useful. A single PC can't decorate 15 of the most critical skills and handle all those. Knowledge skills are a team game in 5E, which is kind of a breath of fresh air when in Pathfinder you'd likely decorate every class skill you could while leveling up while maximizing Perception. This, coupled with the lack of "over-the-top" damage dealing from a single character (no barbarian/magus landing a non-crit for 2d6+15 damage at first level regularly) means folks feel more like equal contributors every time they play.
3. Shorten the time a single player is "out of the spotlight"
In 5E, turns move very quickly. At least at this point, there's less math. There's less going through the rules. If you want to use Dispel Magic to get rid of an enemy's shield spell, it just works. There's no rolling for various effects on that enemy. As a player, you make a tactical decision to spend your action using dispel to get rid of a pesky spell, and we move on within 5-10 seconds. At most Pathfinder games, casting Dispel could mean 1-3 minutes dealing with that choice. There's other fiddly bits that help here too, which is allowing characters to move, attack and then move again. A lot of Pathfinder games in tight quarters in published modules will hit a bottleneck in tight confines where one character "corks" the passage. If the other players don't have reach, ranged weapons or spells, they're out of the spotlight for an encounter (one that could last 20 minutes even). By letting characters move into the room, attack and then create room for someone else (by default), this reinforces a team game where a party all gets into the room somewhere they can be useful and battles take on a more team-oriented nature.
I'm by no means saying one game system is better than the other. I've invested a ton into Pathfinder. I absolutely loathed 4E, but 5E seems to have stumbled onto some really interesting changes that can dramatically alter the "at-the-table-and-playing" vibe of the game. It undoubtedly lacks the same draw in the "away-from-the-table" part of the game, which means for folks on Internet forums who are whiling away time, it's going to come up short in its engagement level.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the simple approach of 5e and it does make me think of 2nd ed a lot. But then I think, why don't I just play 2nd ed?Probably because the 2nd edtion had problems.
The major problem I found with 2nd ed. D&D was it was fun. I found that from 3e onwards they seem to have cured my issue with 2nd ed. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without feats, player choice must come in the form of race, background, and class
Also spells, archetypes, combat styles, and it's not "without feats", feats are an actual choice. You have some feats that give you a pip to one of your attributes as well.
There's also attribute choice. I can go high Dex on my fighter, or get a lot of armor and Charisma for healing people with Combat Maneuvers...
I think 5E is better than Pathfinder. If I haven't switched yet, it's due to lack of materials. I appreciate balance.
ALSO: I prefer fewer meaningful choices than a lot of choices than mean nothing. I mean, do you consider your character better because you took Mobility, Combat Expertise and Skill Focus as prerequisites for stuff you actually wanted?
There's three main things I'm liking in 5E that I think could greatly benefit a Pathfinder 2E for me.
1. Minimize away-from-the-table effort
This is likely the most controversial one and it's one that I've changed my stance on somewhat over the past decade. Pathfinder offers a ton of options currently. When a character hits 3rd level, there is a lot of research you can do to make decisions about choosing your next feat. Certainly, if you're building an archer character (a halfling paladin archer was mentioned in the thread above), odds are pretty high that this feat is going to be Precise Shot or Rapid Shot at this point. In this case, it's not like you're going to spend hours looking at tons of options. But for a lot of characters, this may mean spending 3-4 hours pouring over Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, Advanced Race Guide, and much more (maybe the feat's going to be Pageant of Peacock from the Dragonslayer's Handbook).
A lot of players love this about Pathfinder. When you're at home by yourself and you're bored, you can invest hundreds of hours going through your books, PDFs, the SRD or HeroLab and "play" Pathfinder - the metagame away from the table. You could be playing with how certain traits, feats and class combinations interact or keep going through spell lists looking for something new.
Other gamers view this differently. Completely differently. They are willing to spend 5 hours a week at a table going through an adventure, but don't want to spend another 2-5 hours at home leveling up their character and looking through rules. They'd rather take those 2-5 hours and go surfing, golfing, volunteering, coaching their kid's soccer game, what-have-you. 5E at this stage is really great for hitting the sweet spot for these gamers as there is not a subtle push for them to invest a lot of non-adventuring hours sorting through the game's details. Perhaps this is totally different in 5 years, it will depend on how Wizards...
I will say again: I hate points 1 and 2. That complexity is near to the sole reason I play pathfinder really. I know where you are coming from, though. I understand that there are people who don't like think about rules.
I am just sitting here shocked that people like you are even playing pathfinder. I see you are an adventure path subscriber, though. Is that the draw for you?