| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how anyone can tell me that they didn't gut arcane casters.
Because they didn't start at pathfinder and build 5E from there. The whole gut/nerf/boost terminology makes no sense to me in this context.
I think high level casters are less powerful in 5E than in PF. It's the expectation that pathfinder should be treated as the "default" that I question.
It's true that I like more complex systems over simpler systems. I just don't understand the things they chose to remove from 5th. And the compression of possible modifiers. Sure, I can understand fewer modifiers, but the whole proficiency thing is terrible I think.And you never will, because:
1) You've determined, after one session, that the game isn't for you,
2) you look for things that people say about the game with the intention of taking them out of context as proof that poor maligned spellcasters have been nerfed to become unplayable (pretty f%*~ing laughable, given the history of the game),
3) and most importantly, you don't WANT to like 5e.
Heh. The proficiency approach was one of the things I considered inspired. :)
|
Heh. The proficiency approach was one of the things I considered inspired. :)It's true that I like more complex systems over simpler systems. I just don't understand the things they chose to remove from 5th. And the compression of possible modifiers. Sure, I can understand fewer modifiers, but the whole proficiency thing is terrible I think.And you never will, because:
1) You've determined, after one session, that the game isn't for you,
2) you look for things that people say about the game with the intention of taking them out of context as proof that poor maligned spellcasters have been nerfed to become unplayable (pretty f%*~ing laughable, given the history of the game),
3) and most importantly, you don't WANT to like 5e.
I think it's awful. And I believe it will be considered one of the weaknesses of the system once the community has more experience with the mechanic.
|
|
I don't know how anyone can tell me that they didn't gut arcane casters.Because they didn't start at pathfinder and build 5E from there. The whole gut/nerf/boost terminology makes no sense to me in this context.
I think high level casters are less powerful in 5E than in PF. It's the expectation that pathfinder should be treated as the "default" that I question.
It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.
I think it's awful. And I believe it will be considered one of the weaknesses of the system once the community has more experience with the mechanic.Sure, I can understand fewer modifiers, but the whole proficiency thing is terrible I think.Heh. The proficiency approach was one of the things I considered inspired. :)
What do you find so bad about it?
|
|
What do you find so bad about it?I think it's awful. And I believe it will be considered one of the weaknesses of the system once the community has more experience with the mechanic.Sure, I can understand fewer modifiers, but the whole proficiency thing is terrible I think.Heh. The proficiency approach was one of the things I considered inspired. :)
As I stated above, it narrows the dynamic range of the game dramatically. It also narrows the gap between a true master and an initiate by a tremendous amount as well. Less character growth = stagnating game to me.
It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.I don't know how anyone can tell me that they didn't gut arcane casters.Because they didn't start at pathfinder and build 5E from there. The whole gut/nerf/boost terminology makes no sense to me in this context.
I think high level casters are less powerful in 5E than in PF. It's the expectation that pathfinder should be treated as the "default" that I question.
No, I can see how you would measure it against pathfinder.
I more meant in terms of objective discussion - a lot of people in this thread came to 5E from different games so framing things in terms of "have casters been nerfed?" seems odd to my ear.
|
|
Some people have insisted that the martials being able to move and full attack in the same round is not an issue, because they can't cause enough damage to threaten a caster. I therefore find it necessarily true that they can't do enough damage to threaten a monster that is substantially tougher than a caster. Unless, of course, the monster AREN'T tougher than casters, which seems very unlikely.I don't recall anybody saying that martials can't threaten casters. They can definitely threaten casters, as they should be able to. Being able to move and attack does not, however, give martials an auto-win button. Casters can threaten martials just as easily as the other way around.
In this edition, no class has an "I Win!!!" feature. You can't reliably predict who will win a battle between two characters of the same level if all you know is what class they are.
I'm using DnD dash to look at the defensive spells in the game. Given that every single one I have looked at is less potent than their Pathfinder equivalent, and martials have far more attacks on the move, it really doesn't look good to me.
As I stated above, it narrows the dynamic range of the game dramatically. It also narrows the gap between a true master and an initiate by a tremendous amount as well. Less character growth = stagnating game to me.What do you find so bad about it?I think it's awful. And I believe it will be considered one of the weaknesses of the system once the community has more experience with the mechanic.Sure, I can understand fewer modifiers, but the whole proficiency thing is terrible I think.Heh. The proficiency approach was one of the things I considered inspired. :)
I found even mid level pathfinder to be too spread out - we didn't find it uncommon that one PC could almost certainly succeed where everyone else was doomed to fail. It made it hard to run "sneak into the enemy camp" scenarios (for example).
By higher levels DC setting seems to me to be more akin to "choosing who's going to do this bit".
|
|
Anyone can sneak with an oil of silence or potion of invisibility. If everyone can do everything, then there is no class differentiation at all. Of course, there are effective classes with very little skill support at all in Pathfinder.
Also, there are sufficient items that anyone can be at least passable at any skill they really care about.
Extremely heavily armored PCs should take some penalties for sporting such heavy armor, and stealth is one of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, they do get penalties to Stealth when wearing certain armors (and all heavy armors). You get disadvantage on Stealth checks when wearing those armors. You also get no Dex bonus to AC at all in heavy armor, and you must have a certain Strength score to be able to wear them effectively.
A Dex-based fighter can be just as good as a rogue at sneaking around, minus 3 points (unless he gets a trait that gives it as a class skill, which I wouldn't doubt that there is one).
Honestly, it feels like you are just trying to find things to not like about 5th edition, just as Kthulhu said.
|
It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.I don't know how anyone can tell me that they didn't gut arcane casters.Because they didn't start at pathfinder and build 5E from there. The whole gut/nerf/boost terminology makes no sense to me in this context.
I think high level casters are less powerful in 5E than in PF. It's the expectation that pathfinder should be treated as the "default" that I question.
Some people have the capacity to play more than one game.
I probably have two dozen or so systems in print, and I don't even know how many systems in PDF (somewhere in the hundreds). While I haven't played all of them, I've played a LOT of different systems over the years.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it feels like you are just trying to find things to not like about 5th edition, just as Kthulhu said.
Or are just making things up, like with the armor/stealth thing. If you aren't familiar enough with the system to make valid complaints, then don't make up something just to complain, it's pretty easy for someone with the PHB (or even just the Player's Basic Rules) to point out that what you have claimed isn't true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think David was responding to my comment about the difficulty of running a stealth scenario (in pathfinder). I think he meant that I should be experiencing problems running a stealth scenario, since heavily armoured PCs aren't very stealthy.
The armor thing is not really relevant though, since they wouldn't try creeping around in platemail.
|
It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.
The problem is that it make no sense for Wotc to release another rehash of 3.5 with houserules a third time. There is 3.5 and Pathfinder. Why would anyone who has access to both of those rpgs bu the same thing a third time. It's the same comments I'm hearing about Call of Cthulhu 7th edition. It's not like the previous six editions. To be blunt it can't be. Why would I invest in the same came twice. Your not making a good case of being open minded about 5E. I get that it's not the game for you. I disagree but can respect that.
The problem is that it make no sense for Wotc to release another rehash of 3.5 with houserules a third time. There is 3.5 and Pathfinder. Why would anyone who has access to both of those rpgs bu the same thing a third time. It's the same comments I'm hearing about Call of Cthulhu 7th edition. It's not like the previous six editions. To be blunt it can't be. Why would I invest in the same came twice. Your not making a good case of being open minded about 5E. I get that it's not the game for you. I disagree but can respect that.
It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.
The answer is that you get to use your previous edition books. 3.PF books mean that not only you do not lose money, but the money you invested in previous edition books still has value since with minimal effort you can adapt them to the current edition of 3.PF.
It also means that the current edition of 3.PF is vaster because it has more material available than the current editon of D&D. D&D only has the 3 core books out. PF has all it'S books, plus the one of previous editons who are compatible.
This helped Paizo when 4e was released, and it will help them now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course Pathfinder is has more material than 5th edition D&D. It's been out for nearly 7 years, where 5th edition has only been out not even 5 months. This argument has always astounded me. I see it used here, and I see it used with MMORPGs. "Why should I play (new game) which has no content when I can just play WoW?" (New game) just came out, and you are insane if you expect it to have as much content as a game that's been around for 10 years. Same applies to this. 5th edition just came out, and you are insane to expect it to have as much material as a game that's been out for 7 years.
Pathfinder had help when it first came out by saying "3.5 Lives/Thrives!" because it was a clone of 3rd edition, where 4th edition was a whole new beast that was completely different. Practically no one uses anything from 3rd edition with Pathfinder, so saying it has 3rd edition material going for it is disingenuous.
Why did anyone change from 2nd to 3rd edition? 2nd edition had 11 years of material going for it, and it wasn't much different from 1st edition, so it had another 10+ years of material. Because it was different enough for some people to make the switch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your opinion, it was a massive upgrade over 2nd edition. In many people's opinion, 5th edition is a massive upgrade over 4th edtion and Pathfinder.
|
|
In your opinion, it was a massive upgrade over 2nd edition. In many people's opinion, 5th edition is a massive upgrade over 4th edtion and Pathfinder.
I just don't see it, sorry. 2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual. Nor item creation rules. The list goes on and on.
5th ed has so much stripped out that I can't see it as an kind of upgrade. Just easier and less to keep track of. Is it true templating monsters is gone? If so, that's a deal breaker right there.
|
|
Some people have insisted that the martials being able to move and full attack in the same round is not an issue, because they can't cause enough damage to threaten a caster. I therefore find it necessarily true that they can't do enough damage to threaten a monster that is substantially tougher than a caster. Unless, of course, the monster AREN'T tougher than casters, which seems very unlikely.As noted previously, there is a difference between "offering enough damage to threaten an enemy / have an impact in the fight" vs "do enough damage to explode a target in one round."
To try and provide a bit more detail, here is an example from actual play:
In our last session, our party (level 13) gets into a fight with some devils while infiltrating the city of Dis. A Horned Devil with 2 Barbed Devil lackeys. I'm playing a rather squishy caster - a warlock with 15 AC and 58 hp.
Now, in this fight, the rest of the party started between me and the enemies, so the Barbed Devils would need to eat Opportunity Attacks in order to reach me. But that didn't matter, since I went before them in initiative and simply started the fight by backing up and attacking from range - given our similar speeds, catching me wouldn't really be easy for them, and would require wasting at least one round simply double-moving.
So, what would happen if they did get to me? They could full attack for around 22 damage. That's enough to put a substantial dent in my hitpoints - but not enough to take me out of the picture right away.
Of course, the Horned Devil is the real bad guy of the fight. With Fly 60', it can actually pretty easily go after whichever target it wants. And if he came for me, he could put 35-40 damage into me without much trouble. Again - enough to scare me, and enough that I don't want to get stuck next to him. But without crits or some really high damage rolls, not enough to just take me right out.
Of course, the new movement rules only matter so much here. Even if we...
After reading this, I don't understand how anyone ever dies in this system, but maybe that's the point. Your party has 3-4 rounds to get something off of you. How does anyone ever screw that up?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay...I mean I get it, David Bowles, you don't like 5E. I think that has been abundantly made clear.
But I mean the last...three, four pages of posts have I think been entirely dominated by your posts and people responding to them. Maybe we all can just agree to disagree, and have conversations about other aspects of 5E?
Otherwise...yeah this thread has just gotten really pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay...I mean I get it, David Bowles, you don't like 5E. I think that has been abundantly made clear.
But I mean the last...three, four pages of posts have I think been entirely dominated by your posts and people responding to them. Maybe we all can just agree to disagree, and have conversations about other aspects of 5E?
Otherwise...yeah this thread has just gotten really pointless.
What he said.
I am done trying to talk to a wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With 5th ed, I'm paying more money to give myself fewer options and gimpify some of my favorite classes/spells.
No you are not, because you are not allowed to buy it. You didn't pass the entry criteria and therefore aren't allowed to play
I have a lot of friends in the local South Texas scene that enjoy it. They think the stripped down version of the world's oldest RPG is something that needed to come around, especially after all the hardcovers for Pathfinder. They play 5e because it talks in the book about role-playing, and they were wanting something where their time wasn't obscured by longer-wait times at the table.
Will I buy it? No. I'll buy the minis and the Attack Wing game, because I like them. But I'm not going to go into another system. Not after picking up various great products from third party producers for Pathfinder. Not after crafting a game and building a campaign that will take me years to finish.
But is 5e good for people to sit around, drink beer or soda, and socialize while telling a story? Yes. Indeed, it is a much better version of the game for my friends than fourth edition was. But those same people don't want to stop playing Pathfinder, because of the wealth of options and lovely crunchiness in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a theory about the divide between those who like games with less "crunch" and character options and those who prefer the heavy crunch games:
The first group, which includes myself, plays (played, in my case) to experience a cool, memorable adventure and socialize with friends. The second group plays to craft a cool, memorable character and, very likely, to socialize with friends.
For me, the excitement of the game was finding out what our party was going to face (terrible monsters, confounding puzzles and traps, piles of shiny loot) in this ruined old keep as we delved deeper into its confines. I didn't care about my PC at all. He was simply an avatar that allowed me, the player, to experience the adventure. I would have been perfectly content to play pre-gen characters and slap a name on them.
For the second group, I posit that the appeal of the game is the exploration and growth of their PC both through mechanical means (feats, increasing skills, new powers, etc.) and through role-playing their PC's "story".
I want to point out that I am NOT making any distinction about "roll-playing" vs. "role-playing" here at all. I am an old school gamer but I was never a heavy role-player. I am a quiet, introverted person in real life and my PC's were pretty much the same. Any game that had lots of talking and not enough action quickly bored me.
I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others regarding why they prefer "crunchy" vs. "creamy" gaming...
|
|
I have a theory about the divide between those who like games with less "crunch" and character options and those who prefer the heavy crunch games:
The first group, which includes myself, plays (played, in my case) to experience a cool, memorable adventure and socialize with friends. The second group plays to craft a cool, memorable character and, very likely, to socialize with friends.
For me, the excitement of the game was finding out what our party was going to face (terrible monsters, confounding puzzles and traps, piles of shiny loot) in this ruined old keep as we delved deeper into its confines. I didn't care about my PC at all. He was simply an avatar that allowed me, the player, to experience the adventure. I would have been perfectly content to play pre-gen characters and slap a name on them.
For the second group, I posit that the appeal of the game is the exploration and growth of their PC both through mechanical means (feats, increasing skills, new powers, etc.) and through role-playing their PC's "story".
I want to point out that I am NOT making any distinction about "roll-playing" vs. "role-playing" here at all. I am an old school gamer but I was never a heavy role-player. I am a quiet, introverted person in real life and my PC's were pretty much the same. Any game that had lots of talking and not enough action quickly bored me.
I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others regarding why they prefer "crunchy" vs. "creamy" gaming...
Sounds good enough to me. You might have something, because I refuse to use pregens.
|
|
I would not feel confident at all playing an arcane caster in 5th against a tactically minded GM.No version of D&D was really designed to support playing against the DM, and 5e significantly less so than 3.PF. Having the right build has much less impact on combat than being able to gain advantage/avoid disadvantage, which requires cooperation with the DM rather than competition.
When I GM, I run NPCs as I think they would actually behave. When I'm running NPCs that want to murder your PC, you most certainly ARE playing AGAINST me at that moment. The GM wears many hats. Often, you are not against the GM. But sometimes you certainly are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one enjoy the strip-down-ness of 5e. 3ed/Pathfinder was/is getting so darn heavy that it ceased to become stronger system and started to collapse under it's own weight.
Mind you, 5e is bound to suffer from the same fate; after years of new feats, new backgrounds and new path/subclasses, character creation and class optimisation will get heavier. But the fact that you get one choice of background, one choice of subclasses and four feats (five if human) over your 20 levels (assuming the feat optional rule is used), paired with the bound accuracy concept ensuring that you don't need to hoard +1s to get to your DC40 checks, should keep things under some degrees of control a bit longer.
|
|
The answer is that you get to use your previous edition books. 3.PF books mean that not only you do not lose money, but the money you invested in previous edition books still has value since with minimal effort you can adapt them to the current edition of 3.PF.
It also means that the current edition of 3.PF is vaster because it has more material available than the current editon of D&D. D&D only has the 3 core books out. PF has all it'S books, plus the one of previous editons who are compatible.
This helped Paizo when 4e was released, and it will help them now.
Good luck trying to sell another Pathfinder with no changes. Their are two existing editions that already offer the same rules and the ability to use older material. If you think that another reprinted rehash with minor houserules and new cover and interior art is going to sell like it did before with the same numbers. All i can say is keep dreaming. Given how so many of the hobby admit to not even using 3.5. material and just PF. How the fanbase complain about the mechanics of Pathfinder. They might as well throw money away. It will sell yet not in the same numbers imo. The day the do another Pathfinder with no changes is the day myself and my gaming group are done. It made sense and was a good business strategy at the time for Pathfinder to tap into the disgruntled 3.5. market. Now not so much.
Their a point where the devs have to attempt changes to fix the rules while throwing away backwards compability. Or some of it. Call of Cthulhu 7E includes a new mechanic where if the investigators fail at a important role they can either reroll or get a better chance of finding it. Some sessions ground to a halt because of a missing clue. Sure the gm could houserule in the clue yet as players it ruins it because the fun of the game. As well 6E material can fr the most part work with 7E as well. Same could be done with a new version of Pathfinder as well
While 5E is similar it's also different. It offers a reason to reinvest in D&D. A much as I like Paizo it's going to take mroe than that for me to reinvest again. Same material with no changes means I keep using the current edition. New material with at least a few major changes means they get my gaming dollars.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Troll confirmed.
If he means the ability to play monsters as pcs I don't think one could. Or it required a seperate supplement like the Complete Humanoid. If he means that the 2E had no Monster Manual no stats for the various creatures. I have to agree. (Checks 2E MM). I can confirm they had stats. As well as a description of the monsters themselves.
What he said.I am done trying to talk to a wall.
Second I'm done as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to think I wouldn't like rules-light type systems, thinking it would be terrible. I much preferred the type of system like 3rd edition and Pathinder. Getting all this cool crap with more and more and more continuously being churned out. More new spells, feats, traits, classes, archetypes, class features.
But that changed when 2 things happened. The Wrath of the Righteous game I played in, and me giving 5th edition an actual try. The WotR game has turned me off from playing Pathfinder and the more complex rules-heavy type game in the foreseeable future; and 5th edition has actually been good and made me realize how nice a more rules-light style system actually is. It also rekindled my enjoyment of 2nd edition AD&D, making me desire to play that edition again.
I like Paizo, and Pathfinder for the most part. Some of the things they produce seem fun and such. Their adventures are some of the best out there. But I refuse to play Pathfinder except with a certain group, as all others have been the types to focus solely on mechanical power and how many +1s they can squeeze out, making choices solely on how much mechanical power it gives them. I can't stand to play with people like that, and greatly diminishes any fun I have. I am not saying what they do is wrong. If they have fun doing that, I am happy for them. It's just that it is wrong for me, and doesn't bring out any fun.
I'm really curious about Pathfinder unchained, and wonder if it is the advent of 2nd edition Pathfinder the same way Unearthed Arcana announced 2e AD&D, Player's Options announced 3rd ed and Book of Nine Sword announced 4th ed.