5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

501 to 550 of 1,086 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
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.

That doesn't work very well with 5e mechanics, though. The DM doesn't just control the NPCs, they also control the environment and the way the PCs interact with that environment. The DM has to decide what situations give advantage or disadvantage, and set the DC of all the various tasks the PCs want to attempt. In 5e, a great deal of that, by design, requires purely subjective judgment calls.

From a narrativist perspective this is fantastic, because the imaginations of the players can come up with far more story situations than can be handled by any set of comprehensive rules. From a gamist perspective it's awful, because it forces the DM to play against himself in order to give the other players a fair contest. You sound like you have much more of a gamist than a narrativist approach, so 5e probably isn't for you. (But you already know that.)

I'm not comfortable with the GM making those kinds of calls, to be honest. More subjectivity = more arguments. At least in my experience, because so many GMs are about griefing players.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Adjule wrote:
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.

Honestly, if you are perfectly happy with PF, than it is absolutely fine not to have any interest in 5E. And just to clarify again - my own responses to you in this thread hasn't been to try and insist you have to like what they've done with 5E, but to try and clarify areas of the 5E rules that it seemed like you had a limited perspective on. (Which, after only playing one game of it, is not an unreasonable outcome.)

In any case, for me, 5E has a lot to offer. The bounded nature of the numbers - which I know is something you see as a weakness - is, for me, a huge selling point. My group just converted over from a 3.5 game where, at level 12, we were entering the 'PC/DM' arms race. We'd buff up until we were unhittable, we'd swim through most encounters by spamming AOE shut-down spells like Black Tentacles and Wall of Thorns. If the DM ran things out of the book, they would just be trivial for us. But if he designed monsters to try and counter us or use similar tricks against us, it meant we'd have PCs die left and right to a single failed save or a buffed up enemy full round.

So for me, I was very interested in moving to a system where I feel they have made great strides in terms of balance. Where PCs can be effective without encounters being either auto-win or auto-lose. And, notably, where combats are moving fast enough to have more than one fight per session.

So - better balance, faster fights. That is what is getting my interest. 4E took a similar approach at the start, but over the course of the edition, didn't quite stick the landing. From what I've seen, 5E is better poised to avoid the same pitfalls 4E ran into, however. So I'm optimistic about how it will be developed - and all that is aside from liking specific aspects of the class features and options.

Is it going to be a better system for everyone? Of course not. Like I said, if PF - or any other game system - is already doing everything you need it to, that's plenty of reason to keep playing it even *if* 5E was perfect in every way. (And that certainly isn't the case.)

David Bowles wrote:
Is it true templating monsters is gone? If so, that's a deal breaker right there.

It isn't in the MM, though there are some minor guidelines on customizing a few different monsters here and there. But the DMG isn't out yet - we should see within the week, I think, what sort of options there are for adjusting and modifying monsters.

David Bowles wrote:
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?

Well, that was a pretty average difficulty fight in the given example. The expectation is usually that you will go through several of those fights in a day in order to be challenged, as resources get used up. If the DM is throwing more difficult fights at you, it does become a bit easier for monsters to focus on bringing someone down.

Also, again, look closely at the numbers I mention. It is unlikely my warlock was going to get killed by a single full-round from any given enemy. But if a couple enemies are allowed to freely focus on me for 2 rounds, I'm probably in trouble.

The expectation is that if that happens, I'll start breaking out spells to get to safety, or the party will shift gears to try and assist me if I'm in trouble. Maybe that involves healing me, maybe that involves a fighter forcing the enemy to focus on him instead, maybe that just involves rogues and archers putting lots of damage into the enemies attacking me. Different parties will find different solutions.

But, again, that's the idea of the game. The enemy is able to threaten PCs, and the PCs are able to react, and vice versa. That creates the flow of combat and is what keeps fights engaging and dynamic.

And, for me, that is a selling point. When fights get resolved completely in 1-2 rounds in 3.5 or PF - when a single spell or full-attack action is not only capable, but *likely* to entirely remove one or more combatants from play - I find it doesn't make for as interesting a combat. It becomes about winning initiative, bringing the most effective build to the table, and having planned ahead with the most counter-measures to overcome enemy weaknesses.

And don't get me wrong, I think that provides it's own sort of interesting challenge. But these days, I'm preferring the style of 5E, where the interesting and relevant choices are the ones being made each round of combat, as opposed to everything coming down to the ones I made when I built the character or prepared spells in the morning.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:

I meant attributes. I think that they did need them.

The majority of them don't. With very few exceptions. The only ones that come close are the core classes from the 2E PHB. Even then they don't list the attributes. With the exception of Intelligence to give a idea for the dm on what tactics to use. Otherwise they refer a person to a page number in the book. Otherwise no they don't.

A rundown of what given as information in the 2E MM.

Climate/Terrain:
Frequency:
Organization:
Activity Cycle:
Intelligence:
Diet:
Treasure:
Alignment:
No. Appearing:
Armor Class:
Thaco:
No. Of Attacks:
Damage/Attack:
Special Attacks:
Special Defenses:
Magic Resistance:
Size:
Morale Value:
XP Value:

I like adding templates to monsters. It's not a deal breaker for me if it's not there. As more often than not I rarely see templates being used by most DMs. It's extra work and unless a templated creature is part of the game ecosystem it's usually gets killed off. Even without templates I still played 2E D&D. They are a bonus not a must imo.

Silver Crusade

Having monsters without attributes led to all kinds annoying situations in 2nd ed games. Like if monsters wanted to preform strength based tasks. Or how exactly their damage and hps were being calculated.

Silver Crusade

" The expectation is usually that you will go through several of those fights in a day in order to be challenged,"

When I GM, I prefer one or two very difficult encounters as opposed to many average ones. It's not unheard of for healers to be dry after one of my encounters.

"When fights get resolved completely in 1-2 rounds in 3.5 or PF"

In my experience, that almost never happens outside PFS, where the GM is stuck with the author's encounters. My average encounter is 7-9 rounds.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
Having monsters without attributes led to all kinds annoying situations in 2nd ed games. Like if monsters wanted to preform strength based tasks. Or how exactly their damage and hps were being calculated.

Which at the time made me stop playing AD&D for awhile. At least until they released the Complete Humanoid. Which gave attribute values to certain playable monster races. Other than that it was up to the DM which could be both fun and annoying. Though it required a healthy does of common sense. The pack of Ogres should easily break down the door. The pack of orcs with some time as well. The goblins given some time. Well lots of time.

Silver Crusade

memorax wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Having monsters without attributes led to all kinds annoying situations in 2nd ed games. Like if monsters wanted to preform strength based tasks. Or how exactly their damage and hps were being calculated.
Which at the time made me stop playing AD&D for awhile. At least until they released the Complete Humanoid. Which gave attribute values to certain playable monster races. Other than that it was up to the DM which could be both fun and annoying. Though it required a healthy does of common sense. The pack of Ogres should easily break down the door. The pack of orcs with some time as well. The goblins given some time. Well lots of time.

Common sense is a bit of a misnomer to me. Maybe I've just had too many bad GMs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
memorax wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Having monsters without attributes led to all kinds annoying situations in 2nd ed games. Like if monsters wanted to preform strength based tasks. Or how exactly their damage and hps were being calculated.
Which at the time made me stop playing AD&D for awhile. At least until they released the Complete Humanoid. Which gave attribute values to certain playable monster races. Other than that it was up to the DM which could be both fun and annoying. Though it required a healthy does of common sense. The pack of Ogres should easily break down the door. The pack of orcs with some time as well. The goblins given some time. Well lots of time.
Common sense is a bit of a misnomer to me. Maybe I've just had too many bad GMs.

I've had plenty of bad GMs. I've never found rules helped protect me from them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You keep saying "That almost never happens outside of PFS" when it comes to 1-2 round combats. That has been my experience with Pathfinder as a whole, and I NEVER do PFS. I have been in about 15 Pathfinder campaigns in 3 years. All but 1 started at 1st level (that one started at 3rd). The only game where combat lasted more than 3 rounds was in the game that started at 3rd level, and that's because they didn't go for pure power.

And you must have played with nothing but s%~*ty DMs if you think "because so many GMs are about griefing players". Maybe I have just had decent DMs, because none of those 15 campaigns I have been in have had a DM that was about griefing the players. Granted, 10 of those barely lasted more than 5 sessions before they collapsed (thanks, virtual tabletop people... -_-), but not once did any of them actively try to grief the players.

Trying to screw over your players is a good way to be without players.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
memorax wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Having monsters without attributes led to all kinds annoying situations in 2nd ed games. Like if monsters wanted to preform strength based tasks. Or how exactly their damage and hps were being calculated.
Which at the time made me stop playing AD&D for awhile. At least until they released the Complete Humanoid. Which gave attribute values to certain playable monster races. Other than that it was up to the DM which could be both fun and annoying. Though it required a healthy does of common sense. The pack of Ogres should easily break down the door. The pack of orcs with some time as well. The goblins given some time. Well lots of time.
Common sense is a bit of a misnomer to me. Maybe I've just had too many bad GMs.

I've had plenty of bad GMs. I've never found rules helped protect me from them.

Rules really help mediocre GMs, though. I guess it really is total personal preference.

Silver Crusade

Adjule wrote:

You keep saying "That almost never happens outside of PFS" when it comes to 1-2 round combats. That has been my experience with Pathfinder as a whole, and I NEVER do PFS. I have been in about 15 Pathfinder campaigns in 3 years. All but 1 started at 1st level (that one started at 3rd). The only game where combat lasted more than 3 rounds was in the game that started at 3rd level, and that's because they didn't go for pure power.

And you must have played with nothing but s$&#ty DMs if you think "because so many GMs are about griefing players". Maybe I have just had decent DMs, because none of those 15 campaigns I have been in have had a DM that was about griefing the players. Granted, 10 of those barely lasted more than 5 sessions before they collapsed (thanks, virtual tabletop people... -_-), but not once did any of them actively try to grief the players.

Trying to screw over your players is a good way to be without players.

I've been in way too many Pathfinder combats that were mathematically impossible to end in two rounds to really consider it a knock on Pathfinder. It seems our experiences are too different to even compare, really.


I don't get the "I don't want to throw away my $700 investment by switching to a new system" argument.

I've seen campaigns use remarkably few purchased resources and never be at a loss for game ideas - the best example of which was one weekly game set in Waterdeep, been going for nearly two decades with PCs almost never leaving town (if you count Halaster's labyrinth as being "in town").

Like, why couldn't you play 5E Golarion? Mind you, I wouldn't want to but it obviates the argument that you're tossing a $700 game product investment by switching to 5E.


thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.


Quark Blast wrote:

I don't get the "I don't want to throw away my $700 investment by switching to a new system" argument.

I've seen campaigns use remarkably few purchased resources and never be at a loss for game ideas - the best example of which was one weekly game set in Waterdeep, been going for nearly two decades with PCs almost never leaving town (if you count Halaster's labyrinth as being "in town").

Like, why couldn't you play 5E Golarion? Mind you, I wouldn't want to but it obviates the argument that you're tossing a $700 game product investment by switching to 5E.

It's not just setting, but all the mechanics books as well. Possibly mostly mechanics. You can't really use the ACG with 5E, even if you're playing in Golarion.

Some people really like having the tons of mechanical options. I suspect and kind of hope they aren't who 5E is aimed at.


goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

4th edition had ability scores for monsters. 5th edition has ability scores for monsters.


Adjule wrote:

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.

And this lack of material is considered to be one of the things that hurt 4e. This is why the OGL is so important. A new edition comes out and other people have already made compatible material for it. When 3e came out Necromancer Games had a Bestiary ready. This helped people make the transition from 2e because 2e had so much material. 5e's lack of an OGL will hurt it like the lack of PDFs.

What also helped with the switch from 2e to 3e is that they actually produced a guide to help you upgrade your PC. Not perfect, but it helped. It also helped that the fluff stayed the same. You could also recognize spells and magical items with little effort.

The real big addition 3e brought to D&D was feats. The rest was similar to 2e or improved, like saves. In 3e you had less saves and they actually scaled with levels. In 2e a monster or PC with 10 HD almost always made his saves. Boring.


Adjule wrote:
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

4th edition had ability scores for monsters. 5th edition has ability scores for monsters.

Yes, I know.


goldomark wrote:
The real big addition 3e brought to D&D was feats. The rest was similar to 2e or improved, like saves. In 3e you had less saves and they actually scaled with levels. In 2e a monster or PC with 10 HD almost always made his saves. Boring.

The Battle Grid. You can't forget that. It introduces a number of absurdities and slows combat down immensely.

Not a pre-3E mook myself but having looked over the rules once or twice and watched some play I'd say combat grinds to a comparative halt with 3.PF though it also typically lasts only 3 rounds at best.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

I watched Swords and Wizardry play out at PaizoCon with a grid. They got through one combat in the ten minutes I was there. And it started after I arrived.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I watched Swords and Wizardry play out at PaizoCon with a grid. They got through one combat in the ten minutes I was there. And it started after I arrived.

Help me out here.

Does S&W use the same mechanics 3.PF does for their Battle Grid?

I've seen 3.PF combat that took longer to set-up on the Grid than it did to play out. Good initiative rolls + good hits + good damage rolls - one bad save by the BEBG and it was over about 3/4 the way through Round 1.

But in general, 3.PF combat slows the game (for the players) way down; even though the number of rounds played is usually <=3.


Quark Blast wrote:
goldomark wrote:
The real big addition 3e brought to D&D was feats. The rest was similar to 2e or improved, like saves. In 3e you had less saves and they actually scaled with levels. In 2e a monster or PC with 10 HD almost always made his saves. Boring.

The Battle Grid. You can't forget that. It introduces a number of absurdities and slows combat down immensely.

Not a pre-3E mook myself but having looked over the rules once or twice and watched some play I'd say combat grinds to a comparative halt with 3.PF though it also typically lasts only 3 rounds at best.

The grid was optional, but it was always there. Remember, D&D started as a war game.

For example, you had ways to determine randomly where your holy water or flask of acid would land on the grid if you miss your target. Than you could calculate splash damage. That is people around the square where the flask landed too damage.

You could also ajust the AC of someone who was using a shield depending on where the attacker was making his attacks (after all the shield doesn't protect your back or side). You could also ajust AC depending on the armor used and the weapon used against it. Than you could calculate the damage the armor was delt and know if it is was going to become useless...

It was always possible to grind combat to a halt if you wanted too. You can also speed it up if you want to.


Yes but...

All the spell descriptions are given with the assumption that the Battle grid is used.

Facing doesn't matter in Battle Grid combat - a counter intuitive notion that, when combined with all the more sensible rules (like Charging in a straight line and not around corners (unless you have the Feat for that <sigh>), makes it all the harder to swallow.

Etc.


Quark Blast wrote:

Yes but...

All the spell descriptions are given with the assumption that the Battle grid is used.

Facing doesn't matter in Battle Grid combat - a counter intuitive notion that, when combined with all the more sensible rules (like Charging in a straight line and not around corners (unless you have the Feat for that <sigh>), makes it all the harder to swallow.

Etc.

Which edition are you talking about? 2e or 3.X?


3.PF

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Help me out here.

Does S&W use the same mechanics 3.PF does for their Battle Grid?

Hell, I dunno. But they explored the map via the grid, drawn out as they went, and dropped in and out of combat fairly simply. Like I said, they faced down a gray render while I watched.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somewhat back on topic, one of the things I appreciate most about 5E is the dismantling of "Save or Die" spells. There are a still a few high level "I Win" buttons, but saves and DCs never reach the absurd heights they do in 3.PF. So no more, it's a complete waste of time to cast "Hold Monster" on a caster-type enemy, but no more Charm the Heavy-Hitting mook and combat is over, either.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Somewhat back on topic, one of the things I appreciate most about 5E is the dismantling of "Save or Die" spells. There are a still a few high level "I Win" buttons, but saves and DCs never reach the absurd heights they do in 3.PF. So no more, it's a complete waste of time to cast "Hold Monster" on a caster-type enemy, but no more Charm the Heavy-Hitting mook and combat is over, either.

Yeah but when PCs can make attacks by mid-level that deal 100's of hp in damage... what's the harm in Finger of Death? :)

Mostly kidding. Saves and DCs may not reach those heights but Attack Rolls and Armor Class do.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder doesn't have stats int their Bestiaries. I say this because I have redefined "Stats" to mean Frequency, Activity Cycle, Diet, and Morale.

:P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
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 don't think they're asking that of us at all. They're putting out a product that they hope will cater to a multitude of groups for a multitude of reasons. Sure, they'd LOVE for you to abandon Pathfinder because they're competition however I'm certain they assume it's more likely that people will probably end up playing both.

Considering that both systems are pretty different no both mechanics and approach, they fill different niches for style of games off the bat. So for those time when a group is getting new people OR when someone isn't there or for the nights when you've only got a few hours to game and don't want to get into a lengthy campaign, D&D:Next is a great opportunity to indulge in the RPG world without having to put TONS of time in character creations or have fears of being completely over-shadowed by someone's System-Mastery created build.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.


David Bowles wrote:

" The expectation is usually that you will go through several of those fights in a day in order to be challenged,"

When I GM, I prefer one or two very difficult encounters as opposed to many average ones. It's not unheard of for healers to be dry after one of my encounters.

And that's an approach you can still take in 5E. I was just pointing out that the encounter in question was an 'average' one. You were wondering how PCs could ever be threatened in 5E. The answer is either having a good number of average encounters - or, as you might prefer, have just one or two encounters from the higher difficulty tiers ('hard' and 'deadly').

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's some points I've found difficult to get used to in 5th ed vs pathfinder

- Remembering that all I really need to do is determine if a situation is advantage or not, rather than searching through hundreds off possible situational modifiers

- remembering that i can put in the odd +/- modifier if I wish to rather than full advantage.

- Not trying to find ways to make my badguy fights seem epic because every players character is overpowered to the max like Pathfinder can be. I can run battles now where the enemies are a threat without me having to gear them up or down or whatever else is necessary so the party doesn't roflstomp them. Single monster enounters are viable and scary. Ran a Bulette against my party the other day. It ate three of their horses before they could get it down, and nearly killed two players at the same time. One Bulette is actually a level appropriate threat, unlike most encounters in PF.

- Some things that punish players in Pathfinder aren't even things in 5th ed. Sleeping in armour is fine. Shooting while in combat just gives disadvantage rather than getting you smacked in the face. Casters can cast in combat without getting smacked in the face. The game is designed to be simple and fun, rather than a complex math chore.

- There's far less penalties for trying something out in this game. Therefore, people actually try things out. The DM just decides if its easy, normal, hard or exceptional and sets DC as appropriate (5, 10, 15, 20 accordingly). Given the lack of exponential growth in the games stats, those DC's are going to work for a long time and helps keep things consistant. IT's made DMing really, really easy.

As a man who's DM'd for over 30 years now, (although the first few were pretty damn awful since I was only young), this system is easy and makes game play swift and fun.

However, I reckon folks with less experience, or less confidence in setting situations up, will struggle. I believe the DM guide will change that though, providing more systems that DMs can choose to implement if they wish.

My friends and I are time poor now days. This system hits the sweet spot for us in terms of what a fun time is. I haveto say though, and I think this is what David is getting at, when we were younger the complexity in a game was better for us. We enjoyed the complex nature of games in terms of the mathematics and tactical combat simulation as much as the roleplay side of things.

Now that we all have complex jobs, many of which are mentally draining, our roleplay is more about relaxing and having fun. Pathfinder burns us out now days, 5th ed leaves us relaxed and happy.

Just my opinions and experiences.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Building monsters-as-PCs is a misguided -- and ultimately doomed -- attempt at verisimilitude. Especially when you constantly have to break the rules via huge "natural armor" or "racial" bonuses just to get the numbers where you want them anyway.

No thanks...I have better things to do with my prep time than triple-check some monster's swim skill modifier. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After having read the 5E material that has been released so far I am sticking with Pathfinder. I appreciate the options.

Silver Crusade

Shalafi2412 wrote:
After having read the 5E material that has been released so far I am sticking with Pathfinder. I appreciate the options.

I guess I could have just said this and been less specific, avoiding dozens of posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Meh. I'm glad you didnt. I dont really read these threads to hear a whole bunch of people agree with one another.

I found your perspective interesting - it's miles from mine (and I dont really agree with some of your conclusions), but we dont play at the same table so who cares. :)


Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.

There is nothing complex about it. Like TAC0 was never complex. It was math a 12 year old should have been able to do. It can be long. That I agree with, but like anything, with practice you start to know the stuff and creation takes a lot less time.

But we all heard this when 4e came out. "Monster making has never been so simple". Yet it wasn't enough to detrone 3.X.

I wonder if the whole "it takes too long to make a monster" is really just a complaint of a vocal minority on the internet.


That complaint about 4th edition is brand new to me, so I would think it was just the vocal minority on the internet making that complaint.


Wrath wrote:
- Remembering that all I really need to do is determine if a situation is advantage or not, rather than searching through hundreds off possible situational modifiers

Hundreds? Are you obligated to even give some?

Quote:
- Not trying to find ways to make my badguy fights seem epic because every players character is overpowered to the max like Pathfinder can be. I can run battles now where the enemies are a threat without me having to gear them up or down or whatever else is necessary so the party doesn't roflstomp them. Single monster enounters are viable and scary. Ran a Bulette against my party the other day. It ate three of their horses before they could get it down, and nearly killed two players at the same time. One Bulette is actually a level appropriate threat, unlike most encounters in PF.

Give it time. Splat is on the way! In March the first splat book will arrive. Adventurer's Handbook. At 40$ I bet it will be thick with "brokenness". What I do not understand with this argument is why can't you control your PCs power level? You can say "no, that is too powerful".

Quote:
- Some things that punish players in Pathfinder aren't even things in 5th ed. Sleeping in armour is fine.

It is not about punishment. It is about realism. If you do not like it just don't use the rule. It is easier to remove rules than make some up. This is why I like rule heavy games. You can cherry pick what you like and what works. Get rid of what you do not like.

Quote:
Shooting while in combat just gives disadvantage rather than getting you smacked in the face. Casters can cast in combat without getting smacked in the face. The game is designed to be simple and fun, rather than a complex math chore.

How is shooting and casting in combat related to math?

Quote:
- There's far less penalties for trying something out in this game. Therefore, people actually try things out. The DM just decides if its easy, normal, hard or exceptional and sets DC as appropriate (5, 10, 15, 20 accordingly). Given the lack of exponential growth in the games stats, those DC's are going to work for a long time and helps keep things consistant. It's made DMing really, really easy.

I rememberd 2e with its stats that capped at 25 and PCs rarely had more than 19 in score. 3e really freed us from that paradigm. This is a huge step back. Players and DMs will feel constrained over time.

Quote:
As a man who's DM'd for over 30 years now, (although the first few were pretty damn awful since I was only young), this system is easy and makes game play swift and fun.

I started playing/DMing in 1992. We've had no issue with fun or swiftness. What really affected fun was the people with whom we played.

I guess swiftness depends on your gaming opportunities. I play with close friends in one of our houses and game sessions rarely last less than 6 hours. 8-10 hours is pretty frequent. 12 hours still happens from time to time. I guess if you have two hours in a LFGS you want something simple and fast. With friends and a lot of time in front of you, this is less of an issue. We also do not have a lot of fights per night. 1-2 fights is common. 3 is a lot. Sometimes we have none.


Adjule wrote:
That complaint about 4th edition is brand new to me, so I would think it was just the vocal minority on the internet making that complaint.

Which complaint about 4e? All I said is that people who liked 4e liked that monster building was easy. People say the same about 5e right now.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:

Meh. I'm glad you didnt. I dont really read these threads to hear a whole bunch of people agree with one another.

I found your perspective interesting - it's miles from mine (and I dont really agree with some of your conclusions), but we dont play at the same table so who cares. :)

Would it really be an issue if we did? If Pathfinder, I'd play a cleric my way and you'd play it your way. If forced into 5th, I'd find the class I felt was the least gutted and use it. At this point, probably fighter.


I guess I misunderstood the last line of that post of your's.

I have a feeling that this thread will be closed tomorrow when the Paizo people come back. Many comments in here are getting edition war-y.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
goldomark wrote:
I guess swiftness depends on your gaming opportunities. I play with close friends in one of our houses and game sessions rarely last less than 6 hours. 8-10 hours is pretty frequent. 12 hours still happens from time to time. I guess if you have two hours in a LFGS you want something simple and fast. With friends and a lot of time in front of you, this is less of an issue. We also do not have a lot of fights per night. 1-2 fights is common. 3 is a lot. Sometimes we have none.

My love of simple systems grew out of this. We struggle to play for more than three hours. Plus we have a lot of combat. Pathfinder doesn't suit us very well as it takes months to progress the story.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Meh. I'm glad you didnt. I dont really read these threads to hear a whole bunch of people agree with one another.

I found your perspective interesting - it's miles from mine (and I dont really agree with some of your conclusions), but we dont play at the same table so who cares. :)

Would it really be an issue if we did? If Pathfinder, I'd play a cleric my way and you'd play it your way. If forced into 5th, I'd find the class I felt was the least gutted and use it. At this point, probably fighter.

You and I want very different things out of an RPG. That's the issue. (I'm sure it'd be resolvable, but my main point was who cares if two people discussing perspectives on the Internet fundamentally disagree?)

Grand Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Meh. I'm glad you didnt. I dont really read these threads to hear a whole bunch of people agree with one another.

I found your perspective interesting - it's miles from mine (and I dont really agree with some of your conclusions), but we dont play at the same table so who cares. :)

Would it really be an issue if we did? If Pathfinder, I'd play a cleric my way and you'd play it your way. If forced into 5th, I'd find the class I felt was the least gutted and use it. At this point, probably fighter.

I'd say Rogue, personally. Since skill points don't exist any longer, being able to double your proficiency in two skills is a lot tastier. And you don't get to double any of those static bonuses you get as a fighter when you critical hit any longer, but you do get to double your sneak attack dice.

As to which class is most powerful, I STILL say Diviner Wizard (You get to choose two rolls a day that you succeed or the bad guy fails. Either way, you basically get to make it work to your advantage twice. And I promise spells aren't as bad as you think.) but Rogues definitely take the cake for most buffed.

The 3.PF rogue is beyond fixing, to me. It was built in a system that doesn't support it. You can't 'fix' it without changing the underlying mechanics of the either the class or the game.

I still find Sorcerers lackluster, though. I hated them in 3.5, loved them in PF, and just feel sorry for them in 5E. WotC seems to have a grudge against the poor Sorcerer for reasons I'll never understand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
I guess I misunderstood the last line of that post of your's.

It's cool. English is not my first language. I'm from Québec and speak le French.

Quote:
I have a feeling that this thread will be closed tomorrow when the Paizo people come back. Many comments in here are getting edition war-y.

You wanna hear a real edition war comment? No? Well you're gonna anyway!

2e is the best edition ever! Why? Because it is the first one I ever played and I have many great memories playing it with my friends.

Now I'll just watch the forums burn. Hehehe.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Diffan wrote:


I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.
There is nothing complex about it. Like TAC0 was never complex. It was math a 12 year old should have been able to do. It can be long. That I agree with, but like anything, with practice you start to know the stuff and creation takes a lot less time.

It's not complex....it's f#@%ing tedious. Which is far worse. Pathfinder, like 3.0 and 3.5 before it, ascribe to the philosphy that more is better. Especially when it comes to modifiers. Trying to make sure you remember every one of dozens of different modifiers to every single g&+!$@n roll you make is tedious and exhausting. It's not fun in any conceivable way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Adjule wrote:
I guess I misunderstood the last line of that post of your's.

It's cool. English is not my first language. I'm from Québec and speak le French.

Quote:
I have a feeling that this thread will be closed tomorrow when the Paizo people come back. Many comments in here are getting edition war-y.

You wanna hear a real edition war comment? No? Well you're gonna anyway!

2e is the best edition ever! Why? Because it is the first one I ever played and I have many great memories playing it with my friends.

Now I'll just watch the forums burn. Hehehe.

2nd edition is a great edition. First one I really played myself (1 session of 1st edition). I have come to realize I prefer 2nd edition AD&D over 3rd and Pathfinder. 5th edition D&D and 2nd edition AD&D are tied for best, imo.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Wrath wrote:
As a man who's DM'd for over 30 years now, (although the first few were pretty damn awful since I was only young), this system is easy and makes game play swift and fun.
I started playing/DMing in 1992. We've had no issue with fun or swiftness.

Well, play didn't really begin to slow down to a crawl until 2000.

Gee, what happened in 2000 that could have caused that?


Which modifiers are you talking about exactly?

501 to 550 of 1,086 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique All Messageboards