| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, while everyone else is busy sniping at each other over differences in personal taste in the other thread, let's see what we can extract from 5e for use in Pathfinder, without overhauling too much of the game's core chassis (we can't exactly give everybody Spring Attack if Spring Attack is already in the game).
Number 1: A simple interaction with the environment can be incorporated into a move action at no cost (or maybe 5 feet of movement cost, allowing a full-attacker to spend their 5-foot-step on it).
Example: kicking over a chair (for cover), swatting at a candelabra to knock it over (and start a fire on the next round), pulling a lever (to do whatever), etc.
Number 2: Scaling cantrips.
Ex: 1d6 damage at 3rd level, 2d6 at 5th, 3d6 at 11th, 4d6 at 17th.
Number 3: Multiclass spellcasting not being gimped to all hell.
Ex: Even levels (2nd, 4th, etc) of base classes (not prestige classes) other than your favored class act as if they had "+1 level of existing spellcasting class," but only for advancing your favored class casting.
Ex: Arcane spell failure doesn't apply to armor you are proficient in (but does apply to shields unless you have some special ability).
Before you scream, note that the caster has to either spend feat slots, or take a level in another class and be forever behind by 1 caster level. Note that they must also spend gold on the armor, which doesn't stack with mage armor, while bracers of armor continue to exist and protect against incorporeal touch attacks.
Number 4: Reining in AoOs to make combat more fluid.
Ex: Only entering or leaving a creature's threatened area provokes. If you move from one square to another without entering or leaving the creature's threatened area, you don't provoke.
Number 5: Un-gimping sneak attack.
Ex: Sneak attacks (including ranged sneak attacks) can be made as long as at least one other creature is threatening the target, instead of requiring you flank the target.
Number 6: Reining in the paladin's plot-destroying evildar
Ex: Detect evil can only be used 1 + Cha bonus per day. As a consolation prize, allow it to also detect good, law, chaos, and undead simultaneously.
--------------
So, any others?
|
There isn't a lot I really want to grab. I'm more inclined to disassemble 5e and make the game I wanted when they started playtesting.
I tried advantage and... it's really awful with multiple attacks. Bad enough I'll probably never use it again in a system with multiple attacks, ironically including 5e.
Backgrounds would require a massive rework of the skill system, but might be worth looting.
My favorite is probably being able to trade feats in for attribute boosts. It could be slotted in easily enough just by adding the appropriate feats.
Cheers!
Landon
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, cantrips scale in 5e because spell lists are reduced in every possible way. Not sure it makes sense in Pathfinder where spell casting ability is essentially endless. The 5e cantrip is a way to preserve spell slots for more important cases while not having to settle for firing a crossbow.
But maybe that's just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried advantage and... it's really awful with multiple attacks. Bad enough I'll probably never use it again in a system with multiple attacks, ironically including 5e.
Not that advantage could be easily added to Pathfinder but...
What's so terrible about it? You roll 2 d20s at once and can tell instantly which is higher. This makes up for the much more limited number of bonuses to rolls in 5e. Also, since multiple attacks all use the same bonus, it's much faster.
Responses:
Number 1: We do this sort of thing in our group, anyway, but I can see the benefits of having it written down, perhaps bolded and underlined with a neon sign highlighting it.
Number 2: I could live with that - it reminds me of the Reserve feats. I'd also "gut" the spell progression list from 5e and replace PF's spells per day with it, since they have increased over the years to address casters allegedly not having anything to do, because managing one's resources is "hard".
Number 3: This sounds like the Unearthed Arcana Magic Rating system in your example one, which we've been on board with for sometime. I do not, necessarily, agree or disagree with removing arcane spell failure.
Number 4: I really don't agree with this as presented. We like AoO, but I can see why others do not.
Number 5: Agreed.
Number 6: Agreed; we did this by making alignment detecting spells only detect if a creature has a) an aura, similar to a cleric or paladin's and b) an alignment-based subtype and/or descriptor. Worked well for years. Minor adjustments to other plot-destroyers have been reworked, as well.
I'd take #5 but not anything else. The other things have never really been a problem for any game I've been in.
#1 I already kind of do because while there aren't real rules on things like that swift and free actions are generically defined so I just let people burn swift actions to do things like that.
#2 Has almost never mattered. Most spellcasting classes get some kind of magic-ish attack or class feature that does something that tides me over until 1st level spells become abundant enough to take their place but irrelevant enough to not need them half the time. Also I have third party 'pew-pew' wands/staves that just shoot a magic bolt based on caster level (sort of a sword for wizards) So they just use those instead of crossbows.
#3 while on paper multiclassing is gimped in Pathfinder the very subject of multiclassing never comes up until someone finds some kind of build or advantage that covers up the disadvantage. Even before third party products kick in there are so many ways to single class realize a concept that I have yet to even see multiclassed characters in prestige classes in any games Ive been involved in since starting pathfinder. Its a bit biased based on anecdotal evidence but I have yet to be given a reason to care about multiclassing.
As for arcane casting and armor, there are three different arcane gish classes that have something to avoid spell failure. The issue has never mattered at my table. If push comes to shove I have a third party feat to allow that assuming that such a feat doesn't already exist.
#4 AoOs are either a non-issue or an issue to people who don't take the time to not put themselves in positions to not have to deal with it but then all of a sudden want to make the most optimal moves in their situation.
#6 One thing people keep forgetting when I played a paladin was that I need an actual target to use Detect Evil. I cant just radar a room. If we really want to get technical I can only detect evil that actually has an evil aura. Some schmuck that beats his wife at home doesn't detect anything. Now if that schmuck is level 5+ then I detect a little something but if I'm going around smiting everyone that has potentially done nothing but be an a-hole most of the time I'll be at it all day or arrested. Between how the Paladin's detect evil works and the cheap and easy ways to hide alignment its difficult to actually break break plots.
Actually a Paladin can "radar a room", it just takes longer. The Paladin has the option of using Detect Evil normally - a cone effect that takes 3 rounds to give him/her the detailed information on "this creature is evil with (strength) aura, this creature is... etc...." - or using it as a targeted effect that gives all that information immediately but is limited to one person.
Actually a Paladin can "radar a room", it just takes longer. The Paladin has the option of using Detect Evil normally - a cone effect that takes 3 rounds to give him/her the detailed information on "this creature is evil with (strength) aura, this creature is... etc...." - or using it as a targeted effect that gives all that information immediately but is limited to one person.
I see "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."
I see no where that they can radar a room. I see that they can detect evil as the spell leading to a specification on how it works differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually a Paladin can "radar a room", it just takes longer. The Paladin has the option of using Detect Evil normally - a cone effect that takes 3 rounds to give him/her the detailed information on "this creature is evil with (strength) aura, this creature is... etc...." - or using it as a targeted effect that gives all that information immediately but is limited to one person.I see "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."
I see no where that they can radar a room. I see that they can detect evil as the spell leading to a specification on how it works differently.
Read it again,
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell.[Period]
A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds.
So there are two aspects to this ability. One is that they can detect evil as the spell. The other is a special version of detect evil that only paladins can do. They can do both.
Ninja'd by Kolo. Exactly.
The Multiclass spellcasting is about a single pool of spell slots.
The 9 level casters add 1 for 1 to you caster level
the 6 level casters add 1 for 2 levels
the 4 level casters add 1 for 3 levels
So a Wizard3/Cleric 3 has spells slots of a 6th level caster. He prepares 3+Wis modifer cleric spells and 3+ int modifier Wizard spells. He can't prep anything higher than a 2nd level spell in either set.
For casting though he has Caster level 6 spell slots (4/3/3) He might not know any 3rd level spells but he can burn the 3rd level slots on lower level ones. It works fine because most of the spells scale by spell slot instead of by caster level.
But if he keeps an even split between Cleric and Wizard he's never going to know a 9th level spell. He'll be using those 9th level spell slots to throw extra big Fireballs
I do kind of like this set up. Multiclass casters with a prestige class mixing the two end up with a stupid amount of spell slots in PF. A combined list cuts a lot of clutter.
talking about magic
One of the things I noticed in the Spells is that a lot of them have had their duration changed to Concentration. Conjure Monsters - Concentration, Invisibility - Concentration, Antimagic Shell - Concentration Barkskin - Concentration, Fly - Concentration, Hold Person - Concentration, Flesh to Stone - Concentration, etc....
Concentration is a bit easier than previous editions but the simple fact is, you are running only 1 spell at a time for the most part, eliminating the huge Bluff stack you tend to see in PF.
(and in the case of Fly, Concentration drops so do you, none of this float gently to the ground when the spell runs out. Someone with a Bow will pluck you right out of the air)
talking about magic
One of the things I noticed in the Spells is that a lot of them have had their duration changed to Concentration. Conjure Monsters - Concentration, Invisibility - Concentration, Antimagic Shell - Concentration Barkskin - Concentration, Fly - Concentration, Hold Person - Concentration, Flesh to Stone - Concentration, etc....
Concentration is a bit easier than previous editions but the simple fact is, you are running only 1 spell at a time for the most part, eliminating the huge Bluff stack you tend to see in PF.
(and in the case of Fly, Concentration drops so do you, none of this float gently to the ground when the spell runs out. Someone with a Bow will pluck you right out of the air)
Thats definately interesting. One of the things I've been looking at is the Riven Mage, by Rogue Genius Games. Instead of requiring concentrating, these effects instead last mostly for very short durations, like rounds/2 levels mostly. And every spell scales, you dont have a gillion different spells, just a bunch of basic effects that you put more or less energy into.
Different approach to concentration, but I think it has a similar effect. No mega buff combinations.
To expand on spells and spell lists. I think you could do a great deal of good in Pathfinder if you completely tossed out the spell casting/ability mechanics and replaced them with those from 5e. It would scale casters back quite a bit to the point where other classes wouldn't be so far behind.
You could keep the existing spell lists, just change how casters cast and how spells are prepared.
|
|
What's so terrible about it? You roll 2 d20s at once and can tell instantly which is higher. This makes up for the much more limited number of bonuses to rolls in 5e. Also, since multiple attacks all use the same bonus, it's much faster.
It's totally fine with one attack. Works great, actually.
But with multiple attacks, keeping track of which dice go with which attack and cross-applying took a lot more table time than I expected reading the mechanic.
More than a static bonus by a noticeable amount... about as much as a one-round bonus that applied differently to each of your attacks. Enough that I'm completely uninterested using it again.
But where I really found the problem was GMing.
In Next (now 5th Edition), the kobolds gained advantage for swarming their enemies. So each of the kobolds got to roll twice and take the higher...
I checked out about the second or third round of combat. It would have been an order of magnitude easier, and less boring, to run a combat with twelve kobolds in any other edition (including 4th and Pathfinder).
Cheers!
Landon
I liked the Passive Perception or whatever it's called. Seems like it cuts down on Perception rolls for GM and Player alike.
What's so terrible about it? You roll 2 d20s at once and can tell instantly which is higher. This makes up for the much more limited number of bonuses to rolls in 5e. Also, since multiple attacks all use the same bonus, it's much faster.It's totally fine with one attack. Works great, actually.
But with multiple attacks, keeping track of which dice go with which attack and cross-applying took a lot more table time than I expected reading the mechanic.
More than a static bonus by a noticeable amount... about as much as a one-round bonus that applied differently to each of your attacks. Enough that I'm completely uninterested using it again.
But where I really found the problem was GMing.
** spoiler omitted **
Cheers!
Landon
Well lesson 1 for the players is get them away from each other
Possible DM solution for not wanting to bother with it. Use the Passive version of Advantage; a flat +5
|
|
Well lesson 1 for the players is get them away from each other
As written, it was "if they outnumber their foes." So no real tactical considerations.
For reference, the final version is if the kobold has an ally adjacent to you, it gains advantage. So... not really an option if you're fighting the number of kobolds you should be expecting to fight.
Possible DM solution for not wanting to bother with it. Use the Passive version of Advantage; a flat +5
Yeah, there are absolutely workarounds. I mean, advantage is basically the workaround for the "+2 circumstance bonus" from 3e.
But, the question is what we should cannibalize. I tried to cannibalize advantage and found it basically unusable with multiple attacks, including encounters with multi-attacking monsters or groups of monsters.
Obviously, other people's mileage may vary, but I figured I'd share that I'd liked that mechanic enough to try it and it didn't work in combat. I still use it for skill checks sometimes, though, and it works well enough there.
Cheers!
Landon
Yeah when you are looking at characters who can pull of 7 or 8 attacks in a Full round action, Advantage would get messy.
It could be applied well to non-combat situations though like skill checks. Things were you would only ever be rolling one dice.
|
Yeah when you are looking at characters who can pull of 7 or 8 attacks in a Full round action, Advantage would get messy.
Thelemic_Noun's list is pretty good, and certainly all of those are ones on my list, too.
Other things I'd crib fairly directly:
1. How prepared spellcasters pick their spells and power them by spell slots.
2. How weapons have the finesse property intrinsically, eliminating the need for feats to use Dex over Str.
3. The background and inspiration system
4. Basic spell updates for applying results (i.e. I really like Dispel Magic automatically working on low level spells and the elimination of dispel checks for them).
5. Basic spell updates for casting times (i.e. Divine Favor becomes a swift action to cast -- being a bonus action in 5e).
6. Basic spell updates for concentration (i.e. concentration is free, and limiting the # of concurrent spells that be concentrated upon).
6. Elimination of the 5ft step completely (and just using movement to accomplish things, like half your movement to stand from prone). This really makes combat a lot more tactical since 5ft steps make ranged way more powerful that they maybe should be.
For my own RPG, I borrowed...
1) Advantage/disadvantage, except advantages and disadvantages stack and give a static modifier to the check rather than let you reroll it.
2) Weapon finesse as a weapon property. I did the same for cleave as well.
3) Your saves are basically ability checks.
I'm also considering backgrounds. However, I really, really hate inspiration. I've made large arguments explaining why it's an awful system for what it's supposed to do. If you want a mechanic to encourage roleplaying and clever solutions to challenges, I recommend Numenera's GM Intrusions. That mechanic does a better job of adding to the narrative and making players earn their rewards.
What's so terrible about it? You roll 2 d20s at once and can tell instantly which is higher. This makes up for the much more limited number of bonuses to rolls in 5e. Also, since multiple attacks all use the same bonus, it's much faster.It's totally fine with one attack. Works great, actually.
But with multiple attacks, keeping track of which dice go with which attack and cross-applying took a lot more table time than I expected reading the mechanic.
More than a static bonus by a noticeable amount... about as much as a one-round bonus that applied differently to each of your attacks. Enough that I'm completely uninterested using it again.
But where I really found the problem was GMing.
** spoiler omitted **
Cheers!
Landon
I'm still not seeing what your problem with it is ... You roll twice and take the better result, why does this get any more complicated with more attacks or more creatures?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells scaling with Spell slot instead of caster level I think is probably a good one. For one it stream lines the spell lists a bit (Instead of multiple Cure XXX Wound spells you just have a single Cure Wounds spell) for another it removes the Quadratic element from the spellcasters.
Finesse as an inherant weapon trait is also a pretty good one.
They did away with the Multiple attack system of BAB/-5/-10/etc....
Everyone gets 1 Attack. The Warrior types (Barbarian, Fighter, Pally and Ranger) get extra attacks based on class level and they are at full bonus. Since you can split your move up between each of your attacks it gives them a lot of good mobility
I grabbed the free download for DMs they have on their web site. Has some interesting bits as well.
On Monsters DM seems to get a choice of monsters dealing flat damage values or he can roll dice. Giant Spider for example does 7(1d8+3) damage. You can either do the flat 7 each hit or roll the d8+3. I can see that speeding up the DM side of a fight especially when he has a lot of monsters to deal with
A lot of magic items have to be attunned. You basically have to spend a hour fiddling with it before it will work for you. You can only be attuned to a Maximum of 3 items
Simple items like a +1 sword or +1 armor don't need attunment
More important items like Gauntlets of Ogre power need Attunement
Basically you can have 3 big items and a lot of minor ones. I can see good and bad in this system. Players are going to need to make tougher choices about what big items they want but at the same time it could feel too restrictive.
and on those big items. Stat items seem to be back to fix ratings.
Gauntlets of Ogre power = Str 19. If you already have 19 or better they do nothing for you.
Depending on your point of view on Stat boost items that could be a good addition to you game.
The sample wand they have is low on charges but rechanges itself each day. Has 7 charges and regains 1d6+1 each day. When you blow the last charge roll d20. on a 1 it turns to dust. I do like this one. Wand becomes a more permanent fixture to the Mage in the same way a Fighter's sword is for him
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not seeing what your problem with it is ... You roll twice and take the better result, why does this get any more complicated with more attacks or more creatures?
I get the impression that he rolls all of his attacks at the same time. For example, if he gets four iteratives from BAB +16, three from the TWF line, and an extra attack from haste, that's eight attacks and he rolls eight (I imagine colour-coded) d20, with at least 4 different attack modifiers. Advantage/disadvantage would mean that he rolls 16d20 in colour-coded pairs.
Serves him right! I never roll a martials attacks simultaneously, mainly because any attack may take the target down and I can switch target for my next attack. It also has the benefit of being clear which d20 is for which attack (there is only one d20!), so rolling two is no problem.
I agree with a lot of the stuff on here about stealing ideas, but the main one for me would be that the full-attack action allows you to move your speed, breaking up the movement between attacks as desired. This would result in a much more dynamic battlefield, eliminate the absurdity of 20th level, hasted martials with eight attacks losing seven(!) of them just by moving 10-feet instead of 5-feet (while your wizard companion is moving his full 30-feet and still altering the fabric of reality!), help address the caster/martial imbalance, and prevent martials from being immobile DPR turrets. It also allows 'mobile fighter' concepts (like monk or swashbuckler) to actually be mobile!
|
|
I'm still not seeing what your problem with it is ... You roll twice and take the better result, why does this get any more complicated with more attacks or more creatures?
By all means try it, it might work better for you.
In theory, though, I also thought it sounded great and I loved it. In practice, it was a near-complete failure. But "in theory that sounds really easy" isn't something I'm going to disagree with.
There's nothing complicated about it. It adds an operation, though, which is going to slow you down.
It's fine on one roll. Fun for players and all that. Slows you down a little bit, but not so much you can't just cover it with a few more adjectives in your narration.
On two or three rolls in a row, it's slowing you down more. It's obvious now. Like playing with someone who's a little slow at arithmetic: you may not notice at lower levels, but it becomes painfully apparent as they make multiple attacks a round.
At six attacks, I was flat-out bored. I have very rarely had a point GMing where my players were waiting on me and I was the one who was bored.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
Possible DM solution for not wanting to bother with it. Use the Passive version of Advantage; a flat +5Yeah, there are absolutely workarounds. I mean, advantage is basically the workaround for the "+2 circumstance bonus" from 3e.
But, the question is what we should cannibalize. I tried to cannibalize advantage and found it basically unusable with multiple attacks, including encounters with multi-attacking monsters or groups of monsters.
Obviously, other people's mileage may vary, but I figured I'd share that I'd liked that mechanic enough to try it and it didn't work in combat. I still use it for skill checks sometimes, though, and it works well enough there.
Cheers!
Landon
For what it's worth, I've done the math and advantage/disadvantage work out to just about +/-3.3 on a roll (if I recall correctly).
On two or three rolls in a row, it's slowing you down more. It's obvious now. Like playing with someone who's a little slow at arithmetic: you may not notice at lower levels, but it becomes painfully apparent as they make multiple attacks a round.
Yep, I have one player like this in my Kingmaker game. And he's playing a high-level Cavalier. His turns grind the game to a screeching halt. I'd hate to have to wait on him to roll six or seven dice a round and do the math.
|
|
For what it's worth, I've done the math and advantage/disadvantage work out to just about +/-3.3 on a roll (if I recall correctly).
Yup, over the range of all target numbers (1 to 20), it averages to right around 3.
Awkwardly, it's +/-5 on a 50/50 roll and +/-4 over the range you make most rolls. Not really sure what their expected value is.
In any case, replacing it with a static modifier does work way better. But that's just using circumstance modifiers.
If the suggestion is "we should give more and larger circumstance bonuses," I'm all for it. But that's not cannibalizing anything from 5e, that's just using the tools that already exist in 3e (and presumably 4e as well).
I'm just reporting on the (dis)advantage mechanic presented in 5e/Next.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing complicated about it. It adds an operation, though, which is going to slow you down.
'Adds an operation'?
Just grab two d20s instead of one, roll them both from the same hand simultaneously, and see which is higher (or lower).
Since I keep two d20s next to each other, grabbing both takes exactly the same time as grabbing one.
Since I'm rolling them both (and letting go of both) with the same hand at the same time, then this takes exactly the same amount of time as rolling one.
But instead of looking at one, I have to look at two. How many nano-seconds is that? Working out which result is bigger, have we got to 1/100th of a second yet?
Of course, if you roll all eight attacks simultaneously, you deserve what you get.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Malachi, let it lie. Landon's reported his experience using advantage. If your experience is otherwise by all means say so (though your posts look more like theory than from experience using the mechanic regularly in high level play), but it's not very helpful to tell Landon that he must be doing something wrong. Worth keeping in mind that what works for one group doesn't always work for another. YMMV and all that.
Your belief it *shouldn't* slow anything down doesn't invalidate his reported experience, and it sounds like you don't have experience of your own to report to the contrary. If you do, say so, and it can be left at that.
:-)
|
|
But instead of looking at one, I have to look at two. How many nano-seconds is that? Working out which result is bigger, have we got to 1/100th of a second yet?
Try it for a few sessions and see. You assuredly run combat differently than I do and might not notice the time spent at all.
For my part, I've already tried it several times, both in Pathfinder and in Next/5e. I found it unacceptably slow in both.
I agree it shouldn't, in theory, take more time than adding a static modifier. But it adds a noticeable pause in practice, so I'm forced to admit that my theory was wrong.
Edit: Or, you know, what Joe M. said while I was typing this :)
Of course, if you roll all eight attacks simultaneously, you deserve what you get.
For what its worth, I very rarely roll multiple attacks at once. I do like having the option open, though.
I never tried it with advantage. Because, as you point out, it doesn't seem like it would work well.
I like the suggestion to use it for single rolls (skills/saves) but not attacks. For example, I like having aid another on skills work by giving advantage. More interesting than the +2.
Yeah, it does okay for skill checks in my experience.
I haven't tried it much for saves, but it depends on how many you're making in a round. If you have multiple enemies with AoE attacks (or give advantage to enemies against players' AoE attacks), it could get pretty messy.
Cheers!
Landon
There's a lot of things I'd like to steal from 5e for Pathfinder, but my next campaign is already loading up on so many houserules in my pre-campaign prep that I'm wary about adding anything else that may tip the balance too far one way or another.
The one thing I'm really tempted to do is what was suggested above and rip the spellcasting system out wholesale and slotting it into Pathfinder. Spells scaling by spell level rather than caster level just makes more sense to me, period. Especially since it reduces the amount of "Like spell X, just better/worse and at a higher/lower level."
The whole bounded accuracy thing is something I'd love to steal, but I have a feeling it'll be WAAAY more trouble to port over to Pathfinder than it's worth. At that point it'd probably be easier to take the things I DO like from Pathfinder (the classes, skills, and feats a lot of the feats some of the feats) and convert them to work with 5e, rather than the other way around.
I recommend Numenera's GM Intrusions. That mechanic does a better job of adding to the narrative and making players earn their rewards.
Unless I'm gravely mistaken, GM intrusions in Numenera amount to the GM bribing the players with XP to allow him to screw them.
And while I would really like to crib the spellcasting, especially for prepared casters, the problem is that many of the spells were changed, too. Changing one but not the other may cause even more balance problems than just changing both.
Whereas the change to when you can sneak attack, or the ability to pull a lever during your move, or allowing more movement within an enemy's threatened area, doesn't change the game nearly as much.
On two or three rolls in a row, it's slowing you down more. It's obvious now. Like playing with someone who's a little slow at arithmetic: you may not notice at lower levels, but it becomes painfully apparent as they make multiple attacks a round.Yep, I have one player like this in my Kingmaker game. And he's playing a high-level Cavalier. His turns grind the game to a screeching halt. I'd hate to have to wait on him to roll six or seven dice a round and do the math.
We used to have a player like that. He would always play monks and rogues. Waiting on him to calculate his flurry attacks or add up his sneak attack dice was terrible. I approached him about it, found out what his issues were, and assigned the guy/gal to his left to add for him, which corrected the issue. Near the end when he got a smart phone, I setup "macros/scripts" so he could resolve it on his own with a click of the button.
He was a friend of a friend, and while I didn't like him (personality conflicts), I saw no reason not to try and make him feel welcome and comfortable at the table. Adding rolls for these sorts of folks is definitely not a good idea.
Were advantage/disadvantage in 3.x in this form, I'd have made a variant of "these rules don't apply to "Bobgoblin," - I as GM will apply them as static bonuses or penalties to the result of his rolls.
And Malachi and Landon can stop arguing now. De gustibus and all that.
Personally, I just designed a random number generator for 1-20 that generates 2 values and drops the low. You can even input how many attacks and it will give values for all of them.
If there's anything I steal, it'll be this opening up of a lot more things as free actions. I can't see it being horribly broken, and it will certainly make combat a lot more dynamic, which can only be a good thing.
And while I would really like to crib the spellcasting, especially for prepared casters, the problem is that many of the spells were changed, too. Changing one but not the other may cause even more balance problems than just changing both.
Yeah, if I was to take the spellcasting from 5e, I'd take the whole shebang, and tweak whatever Pathfinder spells a player may still want on a case-by-case basis.
We used to have a player like that. He would always play monks and rogues. Waiting on him to calculate his flurry attacks or add up his sneak attack dice was terrible. I approached him about it, found out what his issues were, and assigned the guy/gal to his left to add for him, which corrected the issue. Near the end when he got a smart phone, I setup "macros/scripts" so he could resolve it on his own with a click of the button.On two or three rolls in a row, it's slowing you down more. It's obvious now. Like playing with someone who's a little slow at arithmetic: you may not notice at lower levels, but it becomes painfully apparent as they make multiple attacks a round.Yep, I have one player like this in my Kingmaker game. And he's playing a high-level Cavalier. His turns grind the game to a screeching halt. I'd hate to have to wait on him to roll six or seven dice a round and do the math.
Lucky you. We've tried everything from giving him dice-rolling programs to encouraging him to roll his stuff in advance. None of it sticks. He refuses to use the programs - says he doesn't "like them" as much as actually rolling dice - and the few times he remembers to roll his stuff before his turn comes up, something happens that invalidates whatever he was planning to do so we have to wait on him anyway.
Add to that, he is adamantly uninterested in playing anything that doesn't rely on lots of rolls. He only likes playing martial characters and shapeshifting druids.
|
|
And Malachi and Landon can stop arguing now. De gustibus and all that.
Apologies if I overstepped myself.
On a more positive note, I think the lair actions for their legendary creatures are pretty cool. Basically, at initiative 20, the lair gets to act (steam venting, acid bubbles up, madness intrudes, or whatever).
It helps solve the action economy issue for solo monsters and, hopefully, makes the terrain a little more dynamic at the same time. Very "boss fight," which I'm a fan of.
Cheers!
Landon
Re: Orthos - you have my sympathies; I hope his personality and role playing ability make up for his "selfish behavior" (in my opinion). That would be the only saving grace for me.
As GM, while I do math pretty quick in my head, I still print out a sheet of 100 dice rolls of varying types before a game just to resolve my "rolls" quicker.
On topic, there really isn't a whole lot in 5e to jack for PF in the first place, most of it seems to be minor quality of life improvements which many of us use in varying forms, anyway. Excluding bounded accuracy, one can definitely see where a lot of their rules came from - 5e is more like SWSE than 4e ever was in many respects. Until more material is released, I'm not seeing a lot of borrow. I can't think of anything else beyond what has been mentioned above, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Orthos - you have my sympathies; I hope his personality and role playing ability make up for his "selfish behavior" (in my opinion). That would be the only saving grace for me.
It comes and goes. Some days he's great. Other days... yeah.
What makes Advantage / Disadvantage work so well in 5e, is that it's used in place of more complex arithmetic, no circumstantial +2/+5, -2/-5 etc. You add a static bonus(+2 to +6) if you're proficient and you add your ability score modifier (-5 to +5). That's it. It never really gets more complicated than that. It works within in its own system, although I can see people turned off by the oversimplification (I was reluctant myself), but in play it really speeds things up.
I wouldn't really suggest ripping it out of context and placing it where you roll a lot on the same circumstantial bonuses.
In 5E only martials even get 2 attacks, and only the fighter gets 4. The bonus is the same for each attack, but since you can move between attacks, advantages and disadvantages come and go.
|
|
What makes Advantage / Disadvantage work so well in 5e, is that it's used in place of more complex arithmetic, no circumstantial +2/+5, -2/-5 etc.
Agreed with Ragnarok, advantage/disadvantage shines because it's faster to resolve than the arithmetic present in 3.5/PF.
I have one player who is just not fast at keeping all his bonuses sorted out. When we're in a combat in 3.5/PF and he's working out his power attack, furious focus, iterative attacks, haste, heroism and fighting defensively... it's time for folks to check their email.
In 5e, advantage/disadvantage solves the slowdown for players like him. All his attacks have the exact same bonus, which is the #1 difference-maker in terms of eliminating his need to do adding operations. Second, he's not typically affected by so many effects that change his bonus. Haste isn't adding another +1 to attack anymore (which is probably fine since folks forgot about that half the time). Heroism isn't adding an attack bonus anymore, either.
Now this player can simply grab a bunch of matched colored dice. I can tell him he's trying to hit AC29, and he knows his bonus is +15. He rolls all the dice and we look for a dice in each set that is 14 or higher. His round is resolved in 1/10th of the time it was previously... at first I think I might be exaggerating when I say "1/10th", but it's literally as fast as he can grab his pile of dice and roll now... whereas before it was easily 3-5 minutes.