5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

801 to 850 of 1,086 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:


Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry.

Really? I guess I don't get why recalling numerous situational modifiers is exciting.

Liberty's Edge

That's why for myself at least it's harder and harder to talk or discuss anything with anyone in this hobby. If it's a edition or rpg one likes it's flawless and above reproach. One they don't like and everything and anything is wrong with it.

I enjoy Pathfinder. Yet any games I run or play I ask that people know their character and/or make cheat sheets. In games I run it's a requirement for both. No exceptions unless one is blind or has problems writing.

5E is not perfect but man I never seen one poster go out of his way to find fault with a rpg ever. I'm a critic of some Pathfinder elements I admit and I'm not that harsh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

That's why for myself at least it's harder and harder to talk or discuss anything with anyone in this hobby. If it's a edition or rpg one likes it's flawless and above reproach. One they don't like and everything and anything is wrong with it.

5E is not perfect but man I never seen one poster go out of his way to find fault with a rpg ever. I'm a critic of some Pathfinder elements I admit and I'm not that harsh.

Honestly, I don't think it's quite as bad as you think. It's hard to do in a public internet forum, because there will always be someone like you describe and probably one who's very persistent about it.

There have been plenty of people in this very thread who've been critical of parts of one or the other, but have also found things to like.

It's not about the hobby, it's about the internet. There will be flame wars about everything and anything. Despite appearances, most people are usually pretty reasonable, but it only takes a few.

Liberty's Edge

I see your point. It's just very frustrating at times. I'm not expecting a echo chamber went talking about 5E. Neither nit-picking of 5E. I guess in all fairness I need to talk the good with the bad.

Silver Crusade

I like building things in an orderly manner. I like Civ 5, I like construction games, I like building. That's why I like the 3.X system.

Because 5th stripped out so many defined parts of the game, there are less choices to build with. That's all I'm saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

I like building things in an orderly manner. I like Civ 5, I like construction games, I like building. That's why I like the 3.X system.

Because 5th stripped out so many defined parts of the game, there are less choices to build with. That's all I'm saying.

It may be all you're saying, but the manner you're saying it in comes across as very hostile.

And very concrete. Very much: "It's wrong that it works like X", as opposed to "I don't like systems that do X, because I prefer Y".

Liking different systems is great. People have different tastes. That's why we have all kinds of games. Telling other people there game is wrong is a different thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic. People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic. People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.

Luckily for you, a game already exists that suits your preference: Pathfinder. Those of us who do not enjoy the "crunchiness" of Pathfinder have been given the opportunity to play a game closer to our taste: 5E.

Everyone wins! :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They didn't need to throw players like you a bone. You have Pathfinder to play with. That wasn't their target.


Kthulhu wrote:

That's something that David Bowles doesn't seem to be getting. The default is that you don't have to use the PC creation rules for monsters. That doesn't mean you can't use a portion of those rules if you want to. If you think a monster should have Power Attack.....give it Power Attack!

Monster creation isn't shackled to the PC rules, but it also isn't shackled away from them either.

Not requiring every PC option is fine; it's essentially what I ended up doing in PF anyway. Decoupling monsters from PCs completely was a bit much, though, and I'm glad to see that 5E avoided that mistake again.

Silver Crusade

Adjule wrote:
They didn't need to throw players like you a bone. You have Pathfinder to play with. That wasn't their target.

Maybe something in between would have hit an even broader target base. Essentially removing buffs was a huge change.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic. People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.

Maybe try referring to things that don't match you preferences using language other than "gutted" and "simplistic?" I dunno. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).

Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry.

So an active mechanic that requires interaction is boring compared to v3.5/PF's Lightning Reflexes of +2 to Reflex saves.....? Color me confused.

David Bowles wrote:
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.

Level and CR are still interchangeable here. If you want a higher level Orc, then use a higher value for the damage expression. -5 to attack, +10 or +20 or +30 to damage depending on what strength you want the Orc to be. Why is that difficult?

David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!

See, here's where we totally disagree. As a DM for my group I've always felt constrained by the v3.5 system for creating monsters. Making them bend to the requirements of PCs is just too limiting. Want that Orc to wield two battle-axes, well he's gotta have Dexterity value of X and Two-Weapon Fighting feat AND Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat and that means he'll need to be Y level and blah-blah-blah. No thanks. I'll just write down "2-battle axe attack" on his character sheet and not bother with the minutia of rules-jargon for a monster that will most likely die in the 2-3 rounds of combat he's featured in.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:


I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic.

Your not helping your case writing this type of stuff about 5E. I may respect yet disagree. Yet as a person who likes 5E. Why would I think your a fan let alone like any part of the system

David Bowles wrote:


People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

According to Mike Mearls they expected gamers to want complexity and instead were told they wanted simplicity. Depending on the system I like one that has forumlas well. Hero System is a good example. It works for that system imo. At high levels if one has both a dm and/or players who don't know their characters combats take forever. I'm playing a Bard I need a cheet sheet because the bonuses don't stack. With Hero most bonuses stack unless told otherwise.

Again nothing is wrong with either approach. I just think that 5E may not be the system for you. Pathfinder maybe more to your liking.

David Bowles wrote:


I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.

Well you do have Pathfinder if your worried about 5E being so "gutted". Second your not the market to whom they want to cater to imo. Third a rehashed 3.5 with new art and layout was simply not going to sell well. Why would anyone buy the same system a third time.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


Maybe try referring to things that don't match you preferences using language other than "gutted" and "simplistic?" I dunno. :P

Seconded.

We as gamers sometimes really don't know what we want. We complain that third edition in all it's forms falls apart at higher levels. About the Caster vs martial disparity. About the amount of modifier and flipping through books needed. Wotc released 4E then 5E and some are still not happy. For all the complaints I hear about 3.5/Pathfinder I'm starting to wonder if their is a basis behind that. Not really wanting anything to change. Simply to complain for the sake of it. Not most people in this thread and it's not addressed to those posters. From now on I'm simply going to ignore or assume that a person complains about Pathfinder that unless they say otherwise really is not interested to see anything change.


Diffan wrote:
See, here's where we totally disagree. As a DM for my group I've always felt constrained by the v3.5 system for creating monsters. Making them bend to the requirements of PCs is just too limiting. Want that Orc to wield two battle-axes, well he's gotta have Dexterity value of X and Two-Weapon Fighting feat AND Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat and that means he'll need to be Y level and blah-blah-blah. No thanks. I'll just write down "2-battle axe attack" on his character sheet and not bother with the minutia of rules-jargon for a monster that will most likely die in the 2-3 rounds of combat he's featured in.

Personally, that's never been a problem for me. I would still write down "2 battle axe attack" and worry about the details later if they were required. Knowing that a PC legal path was technically possible, and something that the player could emulate if they chose to, would be more than enough support to carry a 2-3 round beast. That's what I like about the 3.x system of monster creation; I don't feel like I have to treat every single detail of a monster as if they are a PC, but they are similar enough that when a PC wants to copy what they see a monster doing, there is a way for it to happen. With what I saw from 4E, that was not really possible, and it's good that with 5E, they seem to have found a decent compromise.

Liberty's Edge

That works in home games. Not so sure if one can do that in a PFS type of game. I rather have the freedom to build a monster who can use teo weaposn without having to worry if the monster has the right attributes or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).

Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry. The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.

What do these words mean?

Seriously, outside of the mechanical context of 3.5, what do you mean by "scales with the BAB of the Ork?" BAB is a mechanical construct that 5E doesn't use. Are you looking for an effect that scales to the challenge level of the orc? In that case, a higher level orc would get the benefit either due to having more attacks with which to benefit from, or by the DM simply changing the ability to "-10 to hit for +20 damage". Unlikely to happen, given that doesn't fit well in the bounded accuracy of the setting, but you could do it if you really wanted to capture an attack that is wildly inaccurate but highly damaging when it hits.

But the idea that it has to exactly copy the mechanics of a previous system is just... silly, honestly. Same thing for the idea that advantage on dexterity saves is limiting and boring, but that "+2 on reflex saves" is somehow interesting and inspired.

Personally, I don't have a problem if you don't like the system and prefer what you are used to. But at this point it feels like you are not interested in even looking at what the system actually is, and are looking for things to criticize solely because they are different from what you are used to.

For myself, I am quite happy to stay away from the atrocious monster design system of 3.5, which generally was just needless (and inaccurate) busywork for the DM. The change in approach was one of the biggest strengths of 4E, for me, and I'm glad that 5E continues with that design.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


What do these words mean?

Seriously, outside of the mechanical context of 3.5, what do you mean by "scales with the BAB of the Ork?" BAB is a mechanical construct that 5E doesn't use.

It's what he's done the entire thread. Isolate a mechanic of 5e that doesn't work well if you throw it into 3.x, and then criticize it for that, without taking into account that the mechanic is designed for a completely different system.

Really, David, I just have to ask....what are you looking for in this thread?

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think David is confused, thinks WotC just put out 4e, and that there is an actual edition war going on here. The "Edition Wars" of the 4e era had a lot more meat to them, for both sides, since there were a lot of sacred cows involved, a popular upstart willing to pick up the 3x banner, and a ton of (arguably) badly thought out marketing schemes for 4e that, rightly or wrongly rubbed some older players the wrong way.

This time is so different it isn't even funny. WotC learned from the 4e experience, at least marketing-wise, and put out a game that probably is meant more to compete with the OSR in a way than with Pathfinder directly. I don't think Pathfinder fans (other than David) really care what 5e does, unless they want to play a new version of an older edition (sort of), which I think appeals to the older crowd.

See, WotC, I think, understands something some younger gamers might not: TTRPG is a niche hobby compared to just about any other hobby, and is nothing like the phenomenon and cash cow it was in the '80s. They NEED the older gamers to be viable, as there are less and less replacement players willing to put down the xbox controller for four hours of rolling dice. Pathfinder pretty much has the old 3x crowd sewn up, the 4e base wasn't enough to keep Hasbro happy, apparently, so all that is left are the people that don't have the time for 3x any more, and might want something a little simpler, faster and easier to prep, that still has an AD&D feel to it (something 3x and Pathfinder really do not).

If David isn't just having a bit of trollish sporting fun with this, I have to assume he's just got nothing better to do than complain about a game that he won't play because it isn't exactly like the game Paizo already puts out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:

I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic. People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.

It's certainly true they weren't trying to cater to your tastes, but I don't think throwing bones willy billy is a good strategy.

It seems that most of what you like in a game are the things I don't and most of what I like are the things you call weaknesses. I think trying to build a game both you and I would like is likely to result in one nobody would. To make the point from the other direction as it were:

One of my least favourite things about pathfinder is that monsters are built using the same rules as PCs. I've never liked games which follow that approach, I find it needlessly complicated with the end result of apparently greater "verisimilitude" that, in my view, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Do you think it would be good strategy for paizo to include some rules for building and running monsters differently from PCs to "throw players like me a bone" and thus broaden the market they appeal to? Because I think it would fail miserably and leave everyone disappointed. Far better, in my opinion, for paizo to stick to producing a complicated system with lots of subsystems, options and interacting parts rather than try and be all things to all people.

I feel exactly the same with 5E - WotC have decided to go for a simple, loose rule system that focuses on speed of resolution over nuanced mechanics. Complicating it a little bit would still not appeal to players who like a complicated game and would betray WotC's chosen, underlying design principles.


The discussion over monster "building" has puzzled me because, outside of one session of 3.5 about 10 years ago and 1 session of Pathfinder 2 years ago, I have only played Moldvay Basic (aka B/X) and 1st Edition AD&D, so the idea of "building" monsters is totally foreign to me.

The only monsters I ever encountered in my playing days were the "standard" ones listed in the rulebooks. Do other posters here find it boring to fight the non-modified monsters listed in Monster Manuals/Bestiaries? Is your enjoyment of the game predicated on fighting non-standard monsters?

Honestly curious about this point...

Liberty's Edge

Most of the the time I'm satisfied with what is in the Bestiaries. Sometimes it's also good to fight a non-standard monster as well. Not to mention in some cases one has to modify the monster or the npcs to make it a challenge for the players. So far three APs and I have had to modify about 90% of the npcs. Most are poorly designed.

Grand Lodge

Logan1138 wrote:
Is your enjoyment of the game predicated on fighting non-standard monsters?

There was a limited bit of "monster building" during the days of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, especially if one used the pre-published modules, as there were several that featured monsters with class levels.

Granted, this wasn't anywhere near to the extent of 3.x and Pathfinder, but the concept is certainly not a new one...

Though, to answer your question, I like to use both in my games (with 2nd edition AD&D being my goto game of choice).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:

The discussion over monster "building" has puzzled me because, outside of one session of 3.5 about 10 years ago and 1 session of Pathfinder 2 years ago, I have only played Moldvay Basic (aka B/X) and 1st Edition AD&D, so the idea of "building" monsters is totally foreign to me.

The only monsters I ever encountered in my playing days were the "standard" ones listed in the rulebooks. Do other posters here find it boring to fight the non-modified monsters listed in Monster Manuals/Bestiaries? Is your enjoyment of the game predicated on fighting non-standard monsters?

Honestly curious about this point...

In my case, it's more about toning things down. Our group is pretty poor at playing pathfinder - I don't think we've ever made it past level eight before running into a TPK where we basically just couldn't meaningfully hurt the enemy or couldn't avoid being decimated. We generally play prewritten adventures and the toughest things have often been modified from the standard entry (ie they've had templates added or class levels).

Trying to scale back a monster in pathfinder very much feels like I'm fighting the system, given there's a whole bunch of calculations that went into creating the "official" statblock. I wing it okay, but there's no guidelines within the system for simply dialling things back a notch (the way the 4E monster builder has, for example where you can essentially scale any monster to any level in a snap).

The 5E DMG discussion on adventure building, encounter design and monsters is much more suited to me. I'm hard up at the "DM fiat" end of the spectrum anyhow, so a loose set of guidelines rather than a codified process is what I'm looking for, pretty much across the board.


houstonderek wrote:


See, WotC, I think, understands something some younger gamers might not: TTRPG is a niche hobby compared to just about any other hobby, and is nothing like the phenomenon and cash cow it was in the '80s. They NEED the older gamers to be viable, as there are less and less replacement players willing to put down the xbox controller for four hours of rolling dice. Pathfinder pretty much has the old 3x crowd sewn up, the 4e base wasn't enough to keep Hasbro happy, apparently, so all that is left are the people that don't have the time for 3x any more, and might want something a little simpler, faster and easier to prep, that still has an AD&D feel to it (something 3x and Pathfinder really do not).

Interesting hypothesis. Would this be the reason that thus far I'm less attracted to 5e and currently enjoying PF much more?

I would have thought I was part of their key marketing from how much the beta involved the 3.5 audience.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny, a big reason I am welcoming 5e with open arms is they seem like they actually listened to the play testers and their target audience, whereas the Beta felt like a tease, the input was pointless, and we basically got 3x with Jason's house rules anyway.

But, yeah, if you like 3x, 5e isn't your game. If you like AD&D, I'd recommend 5e whole heartedly. No, the mechanics are not the same, not really, but the FEEL is there. It's like they pretty much do all the cool AD&D things, but in a more modern, better edited way.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
If you like AD&D, I'd recommend 5e whole heartedly. No, the mechanics are not the same, not really, but the FEEL is there. It's like they pretty much do all the cool AD&D things, but in a more modern, better edited way.

It's like I said before in another thread. To me, it FEELS like Dungeons & Dragons is back, after an absence of about 15 years.

Liberty's Edge

Even with 3.5. fans involved in the playtest. It makes no sense to release for a third time the same set of rules. Why would anyone buy the same product twice. Even with backwards compability it's still would not have been enough for myself and my gaming group to reinvest. It's the same reason that Call of Cthulhu 7E is similiar to 5E. Familiar elements with some new rules. The ability to use older sourcebooks with some changes. Not another rehash with better art and organization.


Hey, I bought Pathfinder didn't I.

There was 3e, which I bought. There was 3.5 which I bought (and even got the deluxe leatherbounds).

And if you count PF as a version of it, that's three.

So, you could say fourth time, as many who bought PF bought those rules for a third time already!

PS: I should add, I consider PF a separate game and different game then D&D though, part of what makes it acceptable. It's even moreso it's own game after the APG, UC, UM, and APG!


If Pathfinder wasn't still available with new products, then maybe another rehash of 3rd edition might have sold. But making 5th edition another 3rd edition with Pathfinder still being created for, would have been a death sentence. May as well just set that money on fire.

5th edition does have that AD&D feel. I enjoyed my time with 3rd edition thanks to the people I played with. I have 35 3rd edition books, as well as 3 d20 modern books, besm d20, and the Everquest d20 book. I also enjoyed the first year and a half I played Pathfinder, but the last year was terrible thanks to the people I played with.

So I was ready for a departure from the 3rd edition d20 OGL ruleset. 5th edition couldn't have come out at a better time for me. I am just glad that I liked what I played for those 5 sessions of 5th edition I was able to play.

I know that if it was yet another 3rd edition rehash, I wouldn't have even bothered looking at the books.

Liberty's Edge

Well I don't really consider 3E and 3.5. that much different. For me 3.5 was just a rehash like Pathfinder with a few house rules added in. I'm not saying every gamer in the hobby would not buy 5E if it was just another rehash of 3.5 with better art. It would sure as hell not be the same amount that bought 3E or Pathfinder. At most you might get a few that buy the PDF. A entire gaming group buying the same thing a third time. All I'm going to say is good luck.

The only reason I bought Pathfinder is because besides what they did to the Fighter I like the changes and it's supported. As well I sold off all my 3E books as well. So if I have to buy the same thing again I might as well go with the latest supported version. If I had kept my 3E material chances are good all I would be using is the online SRD to supplement my 3E material. Without buying anything for PF. As it seems that even after all this time they still can't get a proper mix of fluff and crunch. In the Giant Slayers handbook they redid Monkey Grip for PF. Yet once again nerfed it to make it somewhat useless. Paizo really does not like martials imo.


memorax wrote:

Well I don't really consider 3E and 3.5. that much different. For me 3.5 was just a rehash like Pathfinder with a few house rules added in. I'm not saying every gamer in the hobby would not buy 5E if it was just another rehash of 3.5 with better art. It would sure as hell not be the same amount that bought 3E or Pathfinder. At most you might get a few that buy the PDF. A entire gaming group buying the same thing a third time. All I'm going to say is good luck.

The only reason I bought Pathfinder is because besides what they did to the Fighter I like the changes and it's supported. As well I sold off all my 3E books as well. So if I have to buy the same thing again I might as well go with the latest supported version. If I had kept my 3E material chances are good all I would be using is the online SRD to supplement my 3E material. Without buying anything for PF. As it seems that even after all this time they still can't get a proper mix of fluff and crunch. In the Giant Slayers handbook they redid Monkey Grip for PF. Yet once again nerfed it to make it somewhat useless. Paizo really does not like martials imo.

The big difference if WotC had put out a 3.5 rehash would be that it would be in direct competition with an existing 3.5 rehash. That wasn't the case with either 3.5 or PF. Both replaced previous editions.

Marketing wise, it's an entirely different situation. More like trying to start PF while 3.5 was still being published.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess we'll see when they put out the fourth edition of 3.0 (AKA Pathfinder 2e).

I'm wondering if it's major change is to admit Paizo's bias and relegate all non-caster classes to NPC class status.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Well I don't really consider 3E and 3.5. that much The big difference if WotC had put out a 3.5 rehash would be that it would be in direct competition with an existing 3.5 rehash. That wasn't the case with either 3.5 or PF. Both replaced previous editions.

Marketing wise, it's an entirely different situation. More like trying to start PF while 3.5 was still being published.

Good point. I do we can agree that a 5E that was 3.5 unchanged would not sell well.

The interesting thing about 5E and it being more simpler to run. Is more and more outside of these boards those in the hobby once they finish their existing PF games will switch to 5E. It's like when 3E came out and 2E games began drying up. I go to other sites and the general feeling is that some put up with Pathfinder flaws because they had to and disliked 4E. Now with 5E they no onger want to deal with those flaws. I think 5E may actually give Paizo a run for it's money.

At this point with 5E I don't think they can re-release a unchanged PF. If they can at least do something about high level play then maybe. If the game still slows down at high levels I can see those in the hobby panning the new edition. Gamers want a rpg that gives them opitions while also being if not rules light easier to use. They put up with the flaws because they have too. Not because they want to.

Silver Crusade

I guess my problem really is that I hated 1st and 2nd ed DnD. I don't want a DnD feel. I couldn't dump that game fast enough when I found alternative systems. For a simpler game, Storyteller is far superior than any iteration of DnD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you can stand the Storyteller system. I personally can't. All I ever found for it is emo angsty wanna-be goth Vampire games. Maybe if I was still in my early 20s I might like it more. I am just not into the horror genre, and that's all there seems to be with Storyteller games. It's also why I hate Ravenloft and Ustalav.

I just vastly prefer the heroic fantasy sword and sorcery type games. 5th edition feels great, and plays great. To me. You feel the same about Pathfinder, and I disagree. To me Pathfinder has gotten clunky. Paizo is a great company, and makes some pretty good adventures. I just can't play Pathfinder anymore due to the players that I have come across.

I hope Paizo keeps up the good work, whether I like the system or not. They seem like awesome people and I want them to keep their jobs. But I am just done with Pathfinder.

Why am I still on their forums? Because their forums are vastly superior to WotC's forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I guess my problem really is that I hated 1st and 2nd ed DnD. I don't want a DnD feel. I couldn't dump that game fast enough when I found alternative systems. For a simpler game, Storyteller is far superior than any iteration of DnD.

But Storyteller come with it's own assumptions and works for entirely different genres.

Call of Cthulhu is one of my favorite games. It's simple, plays very quickly and does it's thing very well. But I wouldn't play epic heroic fantasy in it. I'm aware of BRP, but although fantasy, it does a grittier version well, but not the high fantasy stuff.

Storyteller can be fun, though it's not one of my favorites, but I wouldn't try to replace D&D/PF with it. It's not aiming for the same genre.

But yes, if you hated AD&D, 5E might not be for you, depending on why you hated it, of course. Which is fine. It wasn't aimed for you. You seem happy with Pathfinder. Better to aim a new system at those who weren't happy than to leave them in the lurch and fight over the people who already were happy.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not sure what you mean by that David. Your a very confusing poster. D&D whatever it's version has always had a D&D feel to it. From the boxed sets to 5E. There have always been D&Disms imo. Vancian casting in one form or another. Caster who can't wear armor. Druids being nature lovers. The list goes on. Third edition simply removed many of the onetruwayism of 2E. Only humans allowed to go any level. demi-humans with level limits. Proficiences and non-proficinces. Which they just renamed into class skill anyway. While 3E and later D&D has more flexibility it still very much has its elements of D&D.

If that bothers you maybe another fantasy rpg is in order imo. Every game has it's unique elements. If as a player one is used to just charging into battle I don't recommend either Earthdawn or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It's easy to die in those rpgs imo.


memorax wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well I don't really consider 3E and 3.5. that much The big difference if WotC had put out a 3.5 rehash would be that it would be in direct competition with an existing 3.5 rehash. That wasn't the case with either 3.5 or PF. Both replaced previous editions.

Marketing wise, it's an entirely different situation. More like trying to start PF while 3.5 was still being published.

Good point. I do we can agree that a 5E that was 3.5 unchanged would not sell well.

The interesting thing about 5E and it being more simpler to run. Is more and more outside of these boards those in the hobby once they finish their existing PF games will switch to 5E. It's like when 3E came out and 2E games began drying up. I go to other sites and the general feeling is that some put up with Pathfinder flaws because they had to and disliked 4E. Now with 5E they no onger want to deal with those flaws. I think 5E may actually give Paizo a run for it's money.

At this point with 5E I don't think they can re-release a unchanged PF. If they can at least do something about high level play then maybe. If the game still slows down at high levels I can see those in the hobby panning the new edition. Gamers want a rpg that gives them opitions while also being if not rules light easier to use. They put up with the flaws because they have too. Not because they want to.

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

Silver Crusade

memorax wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by that David. Your a very confusing poster. D&D whatever it's version has always had a D&D feel to it. From the boxed sets to 5E. There have always been D&Disms imo. Vancian casting in one form or another. Caster who can't wear armor. Druids being nature lovers. The list goes on. Third edition simply removed many of the onetruwayism of 2E. Only humans allowed to go any level. demi-humans with level limits. Proficiences and non-proficinces. Which they just renamed into class skill anyway. While 3E and later D&D has more flexibility it still very much has its elements of D&D.

If that bothers you maybe another fantasy rpg is in order imo. Every game has it's unique elements. If as a player one is used to just charging into battle I don't recommend either Earthdawn or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It's easy to die in those rpgs imo.

3.X feels a lot different to me than 1st and 2nd. Mechanically speaking. I guess there would be an inevitable backlash against 3.X, and 5th is it. To be honest, I was hoping that 5th would have been a true alternative to PF, because I agree some of it is clunky. But I'm not willing to throw out 80% of the game to get rid of a few things that annoy me. It's the exact same reason I didn't play 4th, even though I kind of respected what it was trying to do.

Silver Crusade

Adjule wrote:

If you can stand the Storyteller system. I personally can't. All I ever found for it is emo angsty wanna-be goth Vampire games. Maybe if I was still in my early 20s I might like it more. I am just not into the horror genre, and that's all there seems to be with Storyteller games. It's also why I hate Ravenloft and Ustalav.

I just vastly prefer the heroic fantasy sword and sorcery type games. 5th edition feels great, and plays great. To me. You feel the same about Pathfinder, and I disagree. To me Pathfinder has gotten clunky. Paizo is a great company, and makes some pretty good adventures. I just can't play Pathfinder anymore due to the players that I have come across.

I hope Paizo keeps up the good work, whether I like the system or not. They seem like awesome people and I want them to keep their jobs. But I am just done with Pathfinder.

Why am I still on their forums? Because their forums are vastly superior to WotC's forums.

Storyteller could be used for fantasy. It's extremely adaptable, actually, because of its simplicity.

As I said, basically taking buffs out as a viable caster strategy is a deal breaker for me.


memorax wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by that David. Your a very confusing poster. D&D whatever it's version has always had a D&D feel to it. From the boxed sets to 5E. There have always been D&Disms imo. Vancian casting. Caster who can't wear armor. Druids being nature lovers. The list goes on. Third edition simply removed many of the onetruwayism of 2E. Only humans allowed to go any level. demi-humans with level limits. Proficiences and non-proficinces. Which they just renamed into class skill anyway. While 3E and later D&D has more flexibility it still very much has its elements of D&D.

If that bothers you maybe another fantasy rpg is in order imo.

Or he could stick to PF.

3.x did a lot more than remove "onwtruwayism limits". For one thing, it introduced the whole "build game" part of the hobby. Or at least vastly amplified it.

For me, 3.x/PF still feels like D&D, even though there are parts of the system I dislike. 4th didn't. Though it played well enough objectively, without the D&D feel, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. I'm aware that's an entirely subjective feeling, but subjective feelings are an important part of appeal.
5E seems to have the feel again. It's too soon to tell if it'll avoid what wound up annoying me about 3.x and avoided bringing back what I didn't like about AD&D (which I've mostly forgotten, it having been a long time.)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

I think you maybe surprised. The attitudes of gamers have changed imo. gone are the days where a player will bend over backwards to make a rpg system work. They find one that is fast, easy and with relatively small amount of flaws and stay with that. It's the reason why Hero System despite being one of the more complete and flexiable generic rpgs on the market has lot much of it's market share. With Fate, Savage Worlds that while not as comprehensive are much faster and easier to play and run. Gamers with more than one choice of rpg just don't want to put with issues within rpgs imo. It's not just the younger generation as well. When the hobby stops becoming fun and feels like a job most take a hard look at the rpgs they run and play and switch accordingly.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People proficient with 3.X don't have to bend over to make it work. Speed and ease of play only get you so far.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Or he could stick to PF.

I assumed as much since he keeps tryingt to compare what 5E can do to PF

thejeff wrote:


3.x did a lot more than remove "onwtruwayism limits". For one thing, it introduced the whole "build game" part of the hobby. Or at least vastly amplified it.

It did make it easier to run the game as well. Their is no CR limits in 2E. Or anything that helps with judging what one can throw at a approriate level party. It seems to me at least trial and error. Which can leads to tpks. Uild" a game that is true. It also added some more complexity to the game as well.

thejeff wrote:


For me, 3.x/PF still feels like D&D, even though there are parts of the system I dislike. 4th didn't. Though it played well enough objectively, without the D&D feel, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. I'm aware that's an entirely subjective feeling, but subjective feelings are an important part of appeal.
5E seems to have the feel again. It's too soon to tell if it'll avoid what wound up annoying me about 3.x and avoided bringing back what I didn't like about AD&D (which I've mostly forgotten, it having been a long time.)

I play PF and dislike some elements as well. It's fdunny because many elements of 5E were in 4E. They just repackaged them differently so hearing a fellow gamer like one but not the other is interesting. Same reason that 4E was less complex than third edition because fans asked for it. Yet with 4E is was not as well received. Now with 5E it is. We really don't know what we want sometimes do we.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

I think you maybe surprised. The attitudes of gamers have changed imo. gone are the days where a player will bend over backwards to make a rpg system work. They find one that is fast, easy and with relatively small amount of flaws and stay with that. It's the reason why Hero System despite being one of the more complete and flexiable generic rpgs on the market has lot much of it's market share. With Fate, Savage Worlds that while not as comprehensive are much faster and easier to play and run. Gamers with more than one choice of rpg just don't want to put with issues within rpgs imo. It's not just the younger generation as well. When the hobby stops becoming fun and feels like a job most take a hard look at the rpgs they run and play and switch accordingly.

I'm not sure those days ever existed. There have always been many options and the marketshare has always mostly gone to a couple.

But I'm not suggesting people will stick with PF despite it not being fun. I'm suggesting there are a lot of people who find PF fun. Who enjoy all the options and all the complexity. Who really like the build game aspect of it. 3.x/PF was and is extremely popular. It's not just that it was the only choice and people couldn't find anything else and it never was.
4E was simpler than PF and an obvious option. Far more obvious for switching, especially at first. That didn't keep PF from becoming popular. I don't think 5E is going to kill PF.

Silver Crusade

"Their is no CR limits in 2E"

There are only CR limits in PFS, not PF homebrew. I don't use the CR system at all when I run, because I can do math on my own.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
memorax wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Some certainly will shift over. Others will stay. Unlike shifts from AD&D->2E or 2E->3.0 or 3.5->PF or 4E, PF isn't going away. Support won't be drying up, so I doubt games will be either. Certainly less so than with previous shifts.

Support for 4E is done though. It'll be interesting to see what happens with its fans. Move on to 5E? Switch to a 3rd part clone? (13th Age is something of a 4E clone, right?)

I think you maybe surprised. The attitudes of gamers have changed imo. gone are the days where a player will bend over backwards to make a rpg system work. They find one that is fast, easy and with relatively small amount of flaws and stay with that. It's the reason why Hero System despite being one of the more complete and flexiable generic rpgs on the market has lot much of it's market share. With Fate, Savage Worlds that while not as comprehensive are much faster and easier to play and run. Gamers with more than one choice of rpg just don't want to put with issues within rpgs imo. It's not just the younger generation as well. When the hobby stops becoming fun and feels like a job most take a hard look at the rpgs they run and play and switch accordingly.

I'm not sure those days ever existed. There have always been many options and the marketshare has always mostly gone to a couple.

But I'm not suggesting people will stick with PF despite it not being fun. I'm suggesting there are a lot of people who find PF fun. Who enjoy all the options and all the complexity. Who really like the build game aspect of it. 3.x/PF was and is extremely popular. It's not just that it was the only choice and people couldn't find anything else and it never was.
4E was simpler than PF and an obvious option. Far more obvious for switching, especially at first. That didn't keep PF from becoming popular. I don't think 5E is going to kill PF.

5th's organized play rules are quite poor, imo. That's a big obstacle to killing off PF, even if they capture over half the market share.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
People proficient with 3.X don't have to bend over to make it work. Speed and ease of play only get you so far.

You kind of do actually at mid to higher levels imo. A cheat sheet is almost mandatory imo. As most modifiers don't stack. So if I cast a spell that provides a morale bonus. The cleric with Nobility as a domain can't use his Inspiring Word domain ability as they don't stack. Then their is the various modifiers from spells and items one needs to keep track off. As again similar bonuses don't stack. Take a look at the description for Haste as a spell it's not a lot but enough to remember.

The game slows down when players who use casters don't know their spells. Flipping through the core and various books the delays do add up. One had the same problem in previous edition as well. Not so much as in third edition/PF. Even as a dm having tio flip through books to find out what feat XYZ does slows the game down. Trying running a game frm level 1-20 with players and a dm who does not prepare ahead of time and tell me how fast it goes.

David Bowles wrote:


There are only CR limits in PFS, not PF homebrew. I don't use the CR system at all when I run, because I can do math on my own.

Well CR is a good way to judge if a group of players can fight something. One can also use the throw a powerful monster and hope the players run away approach. Except that leads to tpks and unhappy players.

David Bowles wrote:


5th's organized play rules are quite poor, imo. That's a big obstacle to killing off PF, even if they capture over half the market share

I think your putting too much faith in organized play. Most games unless players and dms can't find players are home games imo. We were running games long before Paizo even had a organized play.

801 to 850 of 1,086 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique All Messageboards