I have a question for those that have the book. Are there all of the usual races and classes in the printed copy? In the PDF there are fewer races and classes.
I am inclined to decline to play 5e but have been called out because I haven't seen the actual book.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... This has to do with the complexity of the game. ...
Having friends that like 5E and don't like 5E, it seems to me to be pretty simple:
5e is a more focused story teller version and with that, If power level is relatively low and equal, the game management is fairly simple.
In PF, the variation is quite broad for someone that uses all of the books / builds / combinations and sits down at a table with just a core book built character. This can make it very difficult for a GM to balance combats or even role play encounters.
Now going from PF to 5e, I can certainly see the comments of boring, dull and lacking detail...it's to be made up in the overall story telling aspect and "working" the game and the judge with imagination as opposed to rules structures.
Yes, it seems, at least to me, they are very different.
I have a question for those that have the book. Are there all of the usual races and classes in the printed copy? In the PDF there are fewer races and classes.
I am inclined to decline to play 5e but have been called out because I haven't seen the actual book.
AFAIK, the PHB has:
Humans
Elves (3 subraces)
Dwarves (2 subraces)
Gnomes
Halfings (2 subraces)
Draconians
Tieflings
Half-orcs
And 1 or 2 that I'm forgetting.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for those that have the book. Are there all of the usual races and classes in the printed copy? In the PDF there are fewer races and classes.
I am inclined to decline to play 5e but have been called out because I haven't seen the actual book.
It's got all of the races you'd expect from 3.5 and 4E, and a few subraces, with enough hints at other options that I'd be surprised not to see them in future supplements (it talks about svirfneblin for the gnomes but doesn't provide stats, and it also talks about how Dragonlance draconians are variant dragonborn, but again with no stats).
So, I've had some time to read though the PHB and mull over everything, and I think I now have a fully formed opinion on 5e so far.
So first, the rules are a little lighter, and I think that introduces some equalizing factors into the equation. It's harder (but not impossible) to power game under the 5e set up, which is a positive for mixed system mastery groups. There's less variance between characters.
I actually kind of like several of the things they've done; race holds a greater amount of weight in your characters build and development, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are (respectively) core Fighter and Rogue archetypes so you can explore those concepts right from first level. They've really kind of taken the idea of archetypes that Paizo started with and incorporated them directly into the classes, where your base class framework will almost always have a couple varying directions in it. The fact that there's a core Fighter option that utilizes a toned-down but almost Tome of Battle-esque maneuver system is just plain cool.
I'm less of a fan of the fact that you only get 5 feats, but at least they are pretty universally real, meaningful additions to your character, generally with very apparent modifications or impacts on your playstyle and performance.
I don't like that the game basically forces you into a stat array. You simply cannot have a balanced game in 5e on rolled stats since a stat point is essentially balanced to be worth 1/2 a feat. If one player rolls up the equivalent of a 15 point buy and another rolls up the equivalent of a 25, it's like giving one player a 5 feat handicap.
I do like that the game controls scaling much better. Since AC, damage, and to-hit are all much more tightly reined in and given fewer boosts throughout the life of play, leveling has much more to do with the general increase in your options and capabilities. You do get stronger and hit harder, but that's just not as relevant as your expanded capabilities for healing, control, buffing, and other ways of interacting with the game. I don't feel like there's really any level of play in 5e where the class you've chosen means you stop being relevant.
On the flip side of that, I also don't really feel like the game evolves much as you level. Since there are fewer status effects and fewer ways to incapacitate or circumvent foes outside of hit point damage, the game shares the 4e (what I perceive to be a) flaw of the game basically playing the same at 20th level as it does at 1st, just in a bigger arena. Pathfinder's tactical options evolve so much as you level that many of the things that matter at lower levels (like AC and direct damage) just aren't even primary, or even secondary, concerns in the later game. I actually like that about PF, but I can see how consistency of game play is going to appeal to some player's and groups and how this might actually be viewed as a point in 5e's favor.
Honestly, I think 5e and 4e are going to be a tabletop analogue to things we saw digitally with Windows Vista. There was all of this (and I know this is going to be a gross simplification) negative press around Vista because some hardcore computer junkies (the equivalent of those gamers like myself who actually enjoy the complexity of the 3.x style systems) didn't like the automated functions of the system. So the company tried a failed marketing push and then added a few buttons, retro'd a few windows, and then dropped a new version, or edition, and everybody loved the new thing even though for the majority of the population nothing of consequence had changed.
5e and 4e aren't that different mechanically. Some of the names of the features have changed and it doesn't specifically have the AEDU power card format, but all the same basic ideas are there. There are unlimited cantrips, abilities that recharge on a short rest, or on a long rest, martial classes have "maneuvers" that are basically their version of spells (or actual spells!), etc. The game is designed to appeal to the exact same crowd though, they've just hidden or disguised the bits that had the 3.5 crowd crying "MMO!" and removed the most technical verbage that really tied the early versions so close to the grid.
Basically, 5e is going to be great for youger gamers, beginner gamers, and long-time players who just want a simpler game or something more conducive to TotM play. It won't scratch that itch for those of us who like pulling math together in all kinds of interesting ways, or achieving minute character customization, but it it isn't aimed at that crowd anyways. This will probably be the system I go to when I want an easy game that doesn't require much from me, or when I've got a new player to the hobby, but it probably won't be my primary go-to system.
I'm not going to have an opinion until I run a game. Ad nauseum. :)
So far, the game engine is simpler than what I had expected, and yes it does have 4th ed. dna in it, but it doesn't dominate.
I need to run a game before I do a review. Thanks everyone! :)
I'm not going to have an opinion until I run a game. Ad nauseum. :)
So far, the game engine is simpler than what I had expected, and yes it does have 4th ed. dna in it, but it doesn't dominate.
I need to run a game before I do a review. Thanks everyone! :)
I actually don't mind what 4e tried to do. It is clearly not my favorite game in the world, but I don't think it deserves the hate it got. I think it had very clear goals and came very close to achieving all of its goals well.
I just had a lot of personal preference reasons to like it less than other games.
I can essentially say the same of 5e.
|
I have a question for those that have the book. Are there all of the usual races and classes in the printed copy? In the PDF there are fewer races and classes.
I am inclined to decline to play 5e but have been called out because I haven't seen the actual book.
Races:
Dwarf (Hill, Mountain)Elf (High, Wood, Drow)
Halfling (Lightfoot, Stout)
Human (9 ethnicities)
Dragonborn (10 ancestries)
Gnome (Rock, Forest)
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Tiefling
Classes:
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard
I have now run a few games of 5E using the starter set and D&D basic rules which are free. I should have a PHB by Wednesday. Its no9t a bad little system, could even be great once it gets going and I need the PHB to make that call. I kind of like the feats being optional thing, not such a fan of the stat buffs though.
The starter box also looks great in terms of art- not a fan of WAR covers I am afraid.Gut feeling is the game is probably better than Pathfinder. What people will actually play however is another matter entirely and I do not find Pathfinder awful as such I just to not want to run the game at higher levels (7+) or even play the game a s a player at level 14+.
Now I am not sure if 5E is better than the other options I have which is PF, 2nd ed and Castles and Crusades.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to say that having a lot of options and simplifying things that truly are overly complex aren't mutually exclusive.
PF can be more user-friendly and have a wide range of flavorful options. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Making the game easier to play while requiring less system mastery to make certain basic fantasy character concepts viable would be a good thing.
Yes, I agree with Mikaze. Making the game easier to play is a good goal, and requiring less system mastery is another good goal. It's going to be awesome! :)
Just want to say that having a lot of options and simplifying things that truly are overly complex aren't mutually exclusive.
PF can be more user-friendly and have a wide range of flavorful options. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Making the game easier to play while requiring less system mastery to make certain basic fantasy character concepts viable would be a good thing.
Indeed. Just for starters, initiative in 5E is so much simpler. You keep your initiative the same, even if you ready an action or delay temporarily. Readied action doesn't go off? Then it doesn't go off. For those groups that have 'initiative boards', like ours does, this would be a big help when people are constantly waiting for bard song or a buff spell or positioning changes or what have you. Once the PF game I'm running gets over the next mile marker to a new book, I'm considering just adding that in as a house-rule, more or less verbatim from the 5E source.
Just for starters, initiative in 5E is so much simpler. You keep your initiative in 5E, even if you ready an action or delay temporarily. Readied action doesn't go off? Then it doesn't go off.
Heh, we long, long ago houseruled this in. Changing initiatives on the note board mid-combat got annoying.
Just for starters, initiative in 5E is so much simpler. You keep your initiative in 5E, even if you ready an action or delay temporarily. Readied action doesn't go off? Then it doesn't go off.Heh, we long, long ago houseruled this in. Changing initiatives on the note board mid-combat got annoying.
Thought of another one: divorcing swift and immediate actions. In 5E, there's bonus actions and reactions, two separate but equally useful action types. If you use your reaction as a level 5 rogue to halve the damage you take from an AO, you can still take your bonus action that round. In Pathfinder, taking an immediate action consumes your ability to take a swift action and vice-versa. Unnecessary to tie the two together, in my mind.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
as for the reason there aren't 1001 languages...magic. Gods. The gods probably find it convenient if their worshippers can talk to one another, and so cut down on the language variation via using their churches.
==Aelryinth
"What's this? They're building a giant ziggurat to reach the heavens? What should we do?"
"Can any of them cast plane shift?"
"Umm... no."
"Then go back to bed."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*slow clap*
In 5E, there's bonus actions and reactions, two separate but equally useful action types. If you use your reaction as a level 5 rogue to halve the damage you take from an AO, you can still take your bonus action that round. In Pathfinder, taking an immediate action consumes your ability to take a swift action and vice-versa. Unnecessary to tie the two together, in my mind.
Yeah, they yanked that from SWSE, but I don't know if it ever made it into 4e. In essence, you could perform 1 reaction to each triggering action. It was a good call, in my opinion.
In 5E, there's bonus actions and reactions, two separate but equally useful action types. If you use your reaction as a level 5 rogue to halve the damage you take from an AO, you can still take your bonus action that round. In Pathfinder, taking an immediate action consumes your ability to take a swift action and vice-versa. Unnecessary to tie the two together, in my mind.Yeah, they yanked that from SWSE, but I don't know if it ever made it into 4e. In essence, you could perform 1 reaction to each triggering action. It was a good call, in my opinion.
4E had a minor action (essentially a swift) and an immediate action. By default, you could use one of each turn every round. You could also sacrifice a move and/or standard action to get on additional minor action, but that usually wasn't worth it. To my knowledge, there wasn't a way to get more than one immediate action in 4E, same thing with reactions in 5E.
4E had a minor action (essentially a swift) and an immediate action. By default, you could use one of each turn every round. You could also sacrifice a move and/or standard action to get on additional minor action, but that usually wasn't worth it. To my knowledge, there wasn't a way to get more than one immediate action in 4E, same thing with reactions in 5E.
SWSE had scaling down of actions, as well. SWSE actually had a feat which would allow you to take 2 reactions to the same trigger, but we only used it once before realizing how ridiculous it could get.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got the starter box and the new PHB. I've played my first game with my new character (who is brilliant, even if I say so myself).
I didn't really care for 4E. I played it and enjoyed it, but it was more like a glorified board game. So I didn't have high expectations of 5E.
I absolutely love it! What a pleasant, unexpected surprise!
So 5E isn't as complex as PF? I like complexity myself, so this is bad, right? Well, PF wasn't as complex when it came out as it is now! It's easy to see how 5E is designed for new options to plug in with no problem. IIRC, barbarians have two paths starting at 3rd, bards have two, clerics have a domain at 1st (which makes them as distinct as any path), Druids have two, fighters have three, monks have three, paladins have three, rangers have two, rogues have three, sorcerers have two, warlocks have three, and wizards have one for each school. New paths can slot in, and the system already accounts for it.
These paths aren't the only class features that offer choice. For example, fighters choose a path at level 3 (champion, battle master or Eldritch knight, so far!), but even at 1st can choose a fighting style (1H, 2H, sword & board, ranged, or TWF).
New backgrounds can be added easily, and without balance problems since they all give two skills, a combined total of two languages/tool proficiencies, and a role-playing benefit. You can already mix and match these how you like!
I'm entirely happy not to have too many races to choose from! I noticed it first in 4E but now it's crept into PF: the plethora of races, instead of creating more variety, simply creates more predictability. It gets to the stage where you can predict which class a PC is as soon as you know it's race.
So, down the line, I don't expect 5E to be worse off choice-wise for players, while PF's choices are mostly sub-optimal. The more I pore through any new feats chapter (for example), the more I realise that only a fraction of them are worth a damn.
I've always hated the full attacks restricting you to a 5-foot step. Wizards can alter the fabric of reality and still move 30-feet, but I can't hit once with each of my two weapons and move in the same round? I've spent the last few 3.5 warriors to compensate for this insanity. I had a dervish dancer PrC who could move 5-feet between attack until he either ran out of movement or ran out of attacks. I had a pouncing barbarian at 1st level. I had a paladin riding a surface-to-air unicorn that could both simultaneously charge with power attack. I had a dual rapier wielding fighter with True Strike and the feat which allowed him to attack with both as a standard action. Now I'm playing with a fighter who can move his speed as a swift action, so he nearly always gets his full attacks. And why not? They're his attacks, he earned them!
I love swashbucklers, as a concept. You know how hard it is to make one? Dex to damage? Far too OP! Now we've finally got a dedicated class, it can get Dex to damage with a battle-axe but not a rapier? WTF?
Yet, without even trying, 5E let's me play a 1st level fighter who benefits from using a single weapon and no shield (a style basically unsupported in D&D/PF up till now), gets Dex to attack and damage without a feat, can move his speed while full attacking, breaking up his move and attacks however he wishes (and somehow the world doesn't end!), and at third level will be able to attack and parry using much better mechanics than PF's Panache.
Finally, a swashbuckler I can get my teeth into, and only 5E gives it to me.
My first game with him was awesome! Lord FlashHeart has a great future ahead. : )
Just want to say that having a lot of options and simplifying things that truly are overly complex aren't mutually exclusive.
PF can be more user-friendly and have a wide range of flavorful options. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Making the game easier to play while requiring less system mastery to make certain basic fantasy character concepts viable would be a good thing.
As someone who just went searching through three different traits called some variant of "honey" or "honeyed" and "tongue" or "word" (to say nothing of the spell), all of which are very interesting and useful and slightly different... I could agree with this.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To continue along with the conversation of action economy differences between 3.5/PF and 5e, I know a lot of folks dimiss 5e as "too simple" or "basic" compared to the 3.5/PF era.
Yet, I really think there's still a lot of room for the folks who get their kicks out of system mastery - especially around action economy.
#1. You can move, attack and move again - by default. This really changes up combat and makes it much more tactical. It lets you get into a room deeper around an enemy so that folks don't get bottlenecked. This is actually a boon when it comes to mastery of the system's action economy.
#2. Because you only provoke an AoO when you leave an enemy's reach, you can run up to an enemy, swing (often multiple times), and then move around them to complete your movement, without provoking, then letting your ally run up to that same enemy (instead of getting stuck in the hall behind you and lamenting their lack of a bow or reach weapon, and then that ally potentially does the same movement for your third teammate to follow in and participate as well).
#3. With the "bonus action" system (think of a bonus action like a swift action, you get one per turn and only if you have an ability that grants it), anyone who is two-weapon fighting is actually striking twice, even while moving. So someone can move, hit with both weapons (using their bonus - aka swift action - to attack with their second weapon) and then continue to move into their final position.
#4. Any spell you prepare that is castable as a bonus action means you can cast it with your bonus action each round. Divine Favor's casting time is a bonus (aka swift) action and not an action (aka standard action). That means everyone who has Divine Favor prepared, can cast it, move in, attack and then move around an enemy. All in a single turn. No more angst about casting divine favor before you open a door, figuring out how many rounds pass to get that door open. No more working hard to dip Warpriest for Fervor to cast it as a favored action. Divine Favor just works the way it arguable always should've.
The "more elegant" action economy of 5e is actually not necessarily "dumber" or "more basic". It's easier to judge as a GM, but it's significantly more tactical and strategic, because every character is doing more in combat than they do today. 3.5/PF era tactics essentially involve trying to always figure out how to get a full round attack action off as much as possible and not moving more than 5ft per round. A few tweaks which look simpler on the surface of 5e actually mean a lot more tactical activity where you are actually moving about the field/room.
|
Design Manager
|
I do not think it makes sense to assess the complexity of next while only a book is out.
Considering it's the book containing all of the rules for character creation and combat, I think it is. All of the materials to play the game, including their first AP, are out and running. It is a live and published system at this point and I don't think it likely that the remaining books are going to noticeably change the game that everyone will be playing going forward.
DMG will be a hacker's guide to the game, though. Wait until that comes out.
|
Design Manager
|
DMG will be a hacker's guide to the game, though. Wait until that comes out.
I honestly don't think that that is going to have any impact at all on the upper levels of complexity in the game. I strongly suspect it's going to be more of a GM's strategy guide on how best to incorporate the various modules introduced in the PHB and scale up and down with that extra capability. Probably some info on which modules are best to use for a given table/audience. It really wouldn't make any sense for them to release a book in the core line that changes the rules laid out in another book in the same line.
To continue along with the conversation of action economy differences between 3.5/PF and 5e, I know a lot of folks dimiss 5e as "too simple" or "basic" compared to the 3.5/PF era.
Yet, I really think there's still a lot of room for the folks who get their kicks out of system mastery - especially around action economy.
#1. You can move, attack and move again - by default. This really changes up combat and makes it much more tactical. It lets you get into a room deeper around an enemy so that folks don't get bottlenecked. This is actually a boon when it comes to mastery of the system's action economy.
#2. Because you only provoke an AoO when you leave an enemy's reach, you can run up to an enemy, swing (often multiple times), and then move around them to complete your movement, without provoking, then letting your ally run up to that same enemy (instead of getting stuck in the hall behind you and lamenting their lack of a bow or reach weapon, and then that ally potentially does the same movement for your third teammate to follow in and participate as well).
#3. With the "bonus action" system (think of a bonus action like a swift action, you get one per turn and only if you have an ability that grants it), anyone who is two-weapon fighting is actually striking twice, even while moving. So someone can move, hit with both weapons (using their bonus - aka swift action - to attack with their second weapon) and then continue to move into their final position.
#4. Any spell you prepare that is castable as a bonus action means you can cast it with your bonus action each round. Divine Favor's casting time is a bonus (aka swift) action and not an action (aka standard action). That means everyone who has Divine Favor prepared, can cast it, move in, attack and then move around an enemy. All in a single turn. No more angst about casting divine favor before you open a door, figuring out how many rounds pass to get that door open. No more working hard to dip Warpriest for Fervor to cast it as a favored action. Divine Favor just works the way it arguable always should've.
The "more elegant" action economy of 5e is actually not necessarily "dumber" or "more basic". It's easier to judge as a GM, but it's significantly more tactical and strategic, because every character is doing more in combat than they do today. 3.5/PF era tactics essentially involve trying to always figure out how to get a full round attack action off as much as possible and not moving more than 5ft per round. A few tweaks which look simpler on the surface of 5e actually mean a lot more tactical activity where you are actually moving about the field/room.
I agree with you strongly here on 3 and 4. I really love the bones of this action economy system and the focus on thinking of "bonus actions" as a core balancing factor in the action economy. Though really, I don't think the action system is "less complex" exactly. Even pathfinder has a move-minor-standard (4e) action economy at this point. This version just has more restrictive rules for trading (you can effectively "action" into a "move" by dashing) which I think will make the game easier to balance.
On 1 and 2, I think those rules are a symptom of the fact that positioning is less important in 5e. Or perhaps I would more accurately say that the importance of positioning is more left to DM fiat. Flanking doesn't impart advantage right? So it is not going to matter too much where exactly you are standing next to the dragon. That is freedom bought with the closing of a codified tactical door. I am not saying that is bad. I just don't know if that is part of what I like about 5e's action economy.
|
|
.. positioning is less important in 5e..
It's certainly the case with rogues, which is a good thing if you're a rogue.
Some of this will depend on how your GM runs a game. In organized play, it's likely not an issue because scenarios in organized play are run more "theme park style" - i.e. you enter a room, defeat the combat and move to the next room.
In home campaigns, dungeons are more often written as a living ecosystem, where a party that takes on the first cave may end up allowing some of those monsters/guards to peel off and retreat deeper into the complex to grab reinforcements.
This happened a lot when I ran Three Faces of Evil in the Age of Worms AP... and my players quickly focused on closing off retreat as an important tactical objective to start any fight, less they chain 3 encounters together and suddenly face an epic difficulty fight with a CR set to APL+5 or higher. That said, I tend to run dungeons/castles/etc in this manner, so the extra movement, positioning is pretty important among my home tabletop group in adventures.
.. positioning is less important in 5e..It's certainly the case with rogues, which is a good thing if you're a rogue.
Some of this will depend on how your GM runs a game. In organized play, it's likely not an issue because scenarios in organized play are run more "theme park style" - i.e. you enter a room, defeat the combat and move to the next room.
In home campaigns, dungeons are more often written as a living ecosystem, where a party that takes on the first cave may end up allowing some of those monsters/guards to peel off and retreat deeper into the complex to grab reinforcements.
This happened a lot when I ran Three Faces of Evil in the Age of Worms AP... and my players quickly focused on closing off retreat as an important tactical objective to start any fight, less they chain 3 encounters together and suddenly face an epic difficulty fight with a CR set to APL+5 or higher. That said, I tend to run dungeons/castles/etc in this manner, so the extra movement, positioning is pretty important among my home tabletop group in adventures.
Won't it get harder to block retreats when the enemies can just run in a circle around the PCs without interference? Though I suppose two PCs standing next to each other and threatening the same enemy can solve that (since to circle around one PC the enemy would leave the threatened area of the second PC).
I think the rogue is a pretty decent winner in 5e. The 10d6 of sneak attack (35 damage) keeps up well with the 3 additional attacks of the fighter (which are going to deal around 11-15 damage each at the end of the day barring the expenditure of resources). And that sneak attack damage is pretty easy to get.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that annoys me about these quite usually passive aggressive 'comparisons' between PF and 5th is that they're comparing a single core book to the myriad of hardbacks, splats, and APs Paizo has done over several years. It's like having one dude trying to fight an army.
For those that criticize the number of options, did you honestly expect Wizards to release a half dozen rule books and multiple complete adventures at once? The first book's purpose is to lay a foundation on which to build other things and other things are coming. I'd challenge you to restrict future games to CRB only and enjoy the miniscule options by comparison.
The main thing that stands out to me in comparison of the two is that PF's feats give me +2 to something or let me not provoke AoOs by level 3 while 5th's feats let me bypass energy resistances and cast spells in response to AoOs by level 4. Fighters get caster goodies by them as well as early as first level or even without them depending on race without cheapening those who are full casters and vice versa. In Pathfinder, pulling off that kind of mix takes SEVERAL levels minimum. This comes down to matters of taste.
Being based on D&D and d20, the base feel of races, classes, and spells are largely the same between each.
|
|
From 3E onward, multi-classing for a martial was fine and even advantageous. Multiclassing for a full caster was insane before they thought of the '+1 to spellcasting level' for PrCs, and still limited after that. PF nerfed even that option by denying learning new spells as part of that '+1 level' mechanic.
Meanwhile, 5E has finalyy tackled multiclassing casters in a way that previous editions never even attempted. It is better, because there is no competing mechanic to be better than!
How effective the 5E multiclass mechanic for casters will be in the long run, I don't know yet, but I'm confident that it will be better than nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that annoys me about these quite usually passive aggressive 'comparisons' between PF and 5th is that they're comparing a single core book to the myriad of hardbacks, splats, and APs Paizo has done over several years. It's like having one dude trying to fight an army.
For those that criticize the number of options, did you honestly expect Wizards to release a half dozen rule books and multiple complete adventures at once? The first book's purpose is to lay a foundation on which to build other things and other things are coming. I'd challenge you to restrict future games to CRB only and enjoy the miniscule options by comparison.
The main thing that stands out to me in comparison of the two is that PF's feats give me +2 to something or let me not provoke AoOs by level 3 while 5th's feats let me bypass energy resistances and cast spells in response to AoOs by level 4. Fighters get caster goodies by them as well as early as first level or even without them depending on race without cheapening those who are full casters and vice versa. In Pathfinder, pulling off that kind of mix takes SEVERAL levels minimum. This comes down to matters of taste.
Being based on D&D and d20, the base feel of races, classes, and spells are largely the same between each.
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e. This makes me like 5e less. Did you not read my original post?
This does come down to matters of taste, but I have a taste for complexity and I am arguing in this thread that complexity is a major key factor in what makes Pathfinder fun in a way that is unique from the vast array of other fantasy tabletop rpgs.
How do they handle multiclassing for casters? I've only seen the basic rules so far.
Your spell slots are determined by a provided for calculation of each class's levels. For example, you get full credit for wizards, et al. and half credit for ranger levels. A couple also give 3/4 credit. Add up your credits and look at the table in the multiclassing section to determine your final allotment of spells per day.
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e. This makes me like 5e less. Did you not read my original post?
My post wasn't about you per se. It was about these threads in general. They are often passive aggressive snipes at the system just barely able to get by the anti-edition war rule. And, honestly, with how many posts get deleted by mods here for merely provocative language I'm curious how they exist at all. It basically feels like a double standard.
|
Design Manager
|
The thing that annoys me about these quite usually passive aggressive 'comparisons' between PF and 5th is that they're comparing a single core book to the myriad of hardbacks, splats, and APs Paizo has done over several years. It's like having one dude trying to fight an army.
For those that criticize the number of options, did you honestly expect Wizards to release a half dozen rule books and multiple complete adventures at once? The first book's purpose is to lay a foundation on which to build other things and other things are coming. I'd challenge you to restrict future games to CRB only and enjoy the miniscule options by comparison.
The main thing that stands out to me in comparison of the two is that PF's feats give me +2 to something or let me not provoke AoOs by level 3 while 5th's feats let me bypass energy resistances and cast spells in response to AoOs by level 4. Fighters get caster goodies by them as well as early as first level or even without them depending on race without cheapening those who are full casters and vice versa. In Pathfinder, pulling off that kind of mix takes SEVERAL levels minimum. This comes down to matters of taste.
Being based on D&D and d20, the base feel of races, classes, and spells are largely the same between each.
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e. This makes me like 5e less. Did you not read my original post?
This does come down to matters of taste, but I have a taste for complexity and I am arguing in this thread that complexity is a major key factor in what makes Pathfinder fun in a way that is unique from the vast array of other fantasy tabletop rpgs.
This. I even noted several times that any comparisons I made were specifically comparing the new PHB to prior ones and the CRB, not the total wealth of materials out there.
Yes, 5e feats are individually better than a PF feat. However since you get so few of them each one is like a pre-selected chain. That means you have 3 levels where you make essentially 3 choices for your character before you get a bit of specialization/customization in. What Excaliburproxy, myself, and others like a bit more about Pathfinder is the higher degree of granular control in the character building process, where every level has you making choices that make your character distinct to you and expand on mechanics that can reinforce your thematic/RP choices.Note that I even mentioned that I like 5e, though not as my primary tabletop gaming platform. It does make for a fun "quick play" option that gets off the ground easily, but it just doesn't scratch my itch for detailed and individualized character creation.
|
|
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e.
System A offers you two choices: a $20 gift card from Wal-Mart, or a $20 gift card from Target.
System B offers you 16 choices: a $12 gift card from Wal-Mart, or your choice of 15 guys who will punch you in the face.
Is System B automatically a better system due to offering more choices?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaaaaaaaaand exaggeration once again! This is why Edition discussions always end in flames, guys. Your analogy is terribly undercut by its own biting satire, Kthulu.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e.System A offers you two choices: a $20 coupon to Wal-Mart, or a $20 coupon to Target.
System B offers you 16 choices: a $20 coupon to Wal-Mart, or your choice of 15 guys who will punch you in the face.
Is System B automatically a better system due to offering more choices?
That's a ludicrous comparison and not at all accurate. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the messageboards have distorted the idea of "trap feats" to ridiculous levels. There are actually very few trap feats in Pathfinder, and most of the ones that truly are get fixed when the design team is made aware of them (like Prone Shooter).
There are situational feats, and I consider that a plus as Pathfinder is a robust gaming system capable of supporting all manner of playstyles. Say I want to make a heavily armored chariot driver. In 5e I could maybe take a feat that gives me Heavy Armor proficiency and a +1 to (I believe, book's not in front of me) Strength at level 4. Alternatively, I could play Pathfinder and take 1 feat to give me heavy armor proficiency, one feat to make me a better pilot/driver, a stat point to whatever stat I want, and numerous skill points to fine tune and customize my character to whatever I want him to do.
|
Design Manager
|
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e. This makes me like 5e less. Did you not read my original post?My post wasn't about you per se. It was about these threads in general. They are often passive aggressive snipes at the system just barely able to get by the anti-edition war rule. And, honestly, with how many posts get deleted by mods here for merely provocative language I'm curious how they exist at all. It basically feels like a double standard.
Oddly, this thread was doing just fine until you came in and started throwing around accusations of passive-aggressive, biased edition warring. Something to think about.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth noting that a lot of things that you can't do in Pathfinder until you take a feat to be able to do it (ie, one of your vaunted choices) are possible in 5e without the need to burn a feat. You don't have to make the choice, you automatically get it for free.
|
Design Manager
|
It's also worth noting that a lot of things that you can't do in Pathfinder until you take a feat to be able to do it (ie, one of your vaunted choices) are possible in 5e without the need to burn a feat. You don't have to make the choice, you automatically get it for free.
I, personally, don't consider the fact that the new system is more reliant on magic story time non-rules to be a plus. Some people would disagree with that. That's cool. As I've stated a couple times, I don't even really look at them as the same game, any more than I would consider Star Wars Saga Edition to be the same game as the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game. They do different things in different ways and appeal to different audiences for different purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth noting that a lot of things that you can't do in Pathfinder until you take a feat to be able to do it (ie, one of your vaunted choices) are possible in 5e without the need to burn a feat. You don't have to make the choice, you automatically get it for free.I, personally, don't consider the fact that the new system is more reliant on magic story time non-rules to be a plus. Some people would disagree with that. That's cool. As I've stated a couple times, I don't even really look at them as the same game, any more than I would consider Star Wars Saga Edition to be the same game as the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game. They do different things in different ways and appeal to different audiences for different purposes.
Well, at least you're staying above the passive aggressive sniping.
For my part, we've already made the decision to switch to 5e. The rules are vastly superior to what Pathfinder has become. Let’s all remember that wanting simplicity doesn't make you stupid and wanting complexity doesn't make you smart.
There are very few actual trap feats in the sense of feats that are completely useless. There are an awful lot of feats that are really only useful as part of a specific build designed to take advantage of them. But often they require you to spot the hidden combination that makes them actually useful. If you don't, they either look pointless, which isn't too bad or they look generally useful at first glance, so newbies take them because they fit the concept but don't realize how much better other options or specific combinations are.
And then there are the feat taxes and the chains. In many cases you get trapped if you don't plan your build out from the start and take feats that aren't very attractive, except that they let you take other good feats later.Pathfinder has a great build game. For those that are into it, that's wonderful. For those who are more interested in actual game play than in character design, it's not quite so wonderful.
Personally, I'd rather have a robust gaming system that let's me play all sorts of characters without necessarily so much mechanical differentiation, rather than one that requires different complex builds for every concept. I'm also amused at the common claim that PF is so robust you can build anything you want contrasted with the joy at the concepts that can be made with each new rulebook.
I do not share your opinion but I respect it and I am glad that you at least recognize that the build game is valuable to some customers. Good constructive comment.
But how about my question: Is this fun from the build game what makes Pathfinder unique, especially given that 5e D&D is a competitor now?
It's also worth noting that a lot of things that you can't do in Pathfinder until you take a feat to be able to do it (ie, one of your vaunted choices) are possible in 5e without the need to burn a feat. You don't have to make the choice, you automatically get it for free.I, personally, don't consider the fact that the new system is more reliant on magic story time non-rules to be a plus. Some people would disagree with that. That's cool. As I've stated a couple times, I don't even really look at them as the same game, any more than I would consider Star Wars Saga Edition to be the same game as the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game. They do different things in different ways and appeal to different audiences for different purposes.Well, at least you're staying above the passive aggressive sniping.
For my part, we've already made the decision to switch to 5e. The rules are vastly superior to what Pathfinder has become. Let’s all remember that wanting simplicity doesn't make you stupid and wanting complexity doesn't make you smart.
If you want simplicity then why even play D&D? I keep say this but, there is a wide world of retroclones and minimalistic games to explore. If you did not want some complexity then you would not be here (unless you did not know such games existed before now).
I think the "trolls" of this thread are really those people that don't even acknowledge that having fun with builds and thinking about rules is even something that people can't want. I do want it and you are sitting here telling me that I am having bad wrong fun. I have acknowledged that 5e does some things well and in a way that is interesting. However, I think "vastly superior" is an exaggeration and is abandoning your intellectual position by asserting that your preferences are an objective truth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might be time to step away from the topic for a tad, sounds like emotions are starting to get a little heated and the sniping and sarcasm is starting to come to the fore.
Back to our corners, we want a good clean fight out there, a'ight?
=)