5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

901 to 950 of 1,086 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
Talk about taking things to the extreme... Goodness. :-)

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the thread.

Which is okay, I haven't either.


Terquem wrote:

Oh, yeah, and Beholders are lurking around every corner, pfffft, sheesh, I name my beholders

"Jim Phiadt"

and

"Gota Kildem Sohmvay"

I guess you haven't encountered the fleets of beholder ships fighting their eternal civil wars throughout wildspace yet. There was even a published 2e adventure that involved trying to stop what was essentially a beholder Death Star.

There's also a beholder tending bar in a tavern on the Rock of Bral.


Sure, but can he name 100 different fish? Does that beholder at the bar know the name of the state fish of Hawaii,...

Humuhumunukunukuapua'a

B@+@$!

Silver Crusade

Alan_Beven wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.
And in my homebrew a +5 item would be an epic thing, rare as hens teeth, with an extensive backstory and deep ties to the campaign world. Not a parlour trick to challenge PCs.

To each their own. A 25K item is not really epic at all, though.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Just sayin'
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.

How is it GM fiat when an enemy caster legitimately casts it? It's clear that my games run very, very differently than many of the posters on here. It's almost impossible to compare home brew situations, though.


David Bowles wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Just sayin'
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.
How is it GM fiat when an enemy caster legitimately casts it? It's clear that my games run very, very differently than many of the posters on here. It's almost impossible to compare home brew situations, though.

Doesn't the GM decide what "legitimately" means?


David Bowles wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.
And in my homebrew a +5 item would be an epic thing, rare as hens teeth, with an extensive backstory and deep ties to the campaign world. Not a parlour trick to challenge PCs.
To each their own. A 25K item is not really epic at all, though.

I too have found something I agree with Dave on.

in PF a +5 cloak isn't epic, its a right/essential of all 10th or so level pcs, and is but one of many shiny baubles on any Christmas tree


TriOmegaZero wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
If I were to do it...a LOT.
The only person I see using it is a melee cleric willing to run in on the enemy caster. Because otherwise you shut yourself down at the same time. You have many other options to shut someone down as a cleric or wizard without shutting all your magic down at the same time.

of course they shut themselves down...as well as any other caster in the field.

It's called team synergy. Shut down the caster, and they are easy pickings for others.

I use it a LOT, and I imagine I'd use it a LOT in 5e (If I played it). I use many of my mages defensively as a GM on occasion against parties, picking at weak points and other things.

However, many times the melee guys are NOT NPC's, but things from the Monster Manual which have a natural AC and natural bonuses to hit and having a spellcaster back them up with an AMF will benefit THEM far more than it will the party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
In my homebrew especially, cloaks (or whatever slot I want) of resistance +5 become commonplace for enemies eventually.
And in my homebrew a +5 item would be an epic thing, rare as hens teeth, with an extensive backstory and deep ties to the campaign world. Not a parlour trick to challenge PCs.
To each their own. A 25K item is not really epic at all, though.

I too have found something I agree with Dave on.

in PF a +5 cloak isn't epic, its a right/essential of all 10th or so level pcs, and is but one of many shiny baubles on any Christmas tree

You are of course by the rules correct. But I hate the Christmas tree with a passion and my home brew insists that magic items are wondrous things rather than stat boosters. Which is one of the things that 5e does better for me!!!

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I hate about Pathfinder is WBL.

Silver Crusade

I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
One thing I hate about Pathfinder is WBL.

And that's one thing I am glad 5th edition doesn't have.

It has a table for creating characters above 1st level in the DMG. Someone over on the WotC forum posted it. 5th edition "WBL" table This I like so much better.

The above table is NOT something like "characters should have this by this level", but is only for creating characters above 1st level.

Silver Crusade

Hitdice wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Just sayin'
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.
How is it GM fiat when an enemy caster legitimately casts it? It's clear that my games run very, very differently than many of the posters on here. It's almost impossible to compare home brew situations, though.
Doesn't the GM decide what "legitimately" means?

Not exactly. Putting the PCs in a room or area with an AMF is arbitrary. But having an NPC of X caster level that can cast the spell is a more legitimate way of fielding the spell. The enemy caster can be disabled, etc, whereas an area effect can not.


David Bowles wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Just sayin'
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.
How is it GM fiat when an enemy caster legitimately casts it? It's clear that my games run very, very differently than many of the posters on here. It's almost impossible to compare home brew situations, though.
Doesn't the GM decide what "legitimately" means?
Not exactly. Putting the PCs in a room or area with an AMF is arbitrary. But having an NPC of X caster level that can cast the spell is a more legitimate way of fielding the spell. The enemy caster can be disabled, etc, whereas an area effect can not.

OTOH, a caster is rarely going to want to shut himself down along with the enemy. Some monster's may be exceptions to this.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I may be old school, but I though it was the DM's job to be the arbitrator. A game is always gonna be tailored for its players, and that implies arbitrary decisions.

Whether the DM is a dick or not is another question.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.

It is not nerfed, it is a different f&%+ing system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.
It is not nerfed, it is a different f$%#ing system.

No. No. The numbers are smaller. That means it's nerfed.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.
It is not nerfed, it is a different f$%#ing system.

No. No. The numbers are smaller. That means it's nerfed.

I know. Actually recognizing the limitations of the RNG, thus smoothing out the power progression and keeping the die relevant longer, is so déclassé.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.
It is not nerfed, it is a different f~&*ing system.

At this point I'm going with a spot of trolling fun. No one is that obtuse. ;-)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.

Gotta love Palladium. Making every other game system in existence seem weak and sickly since 1981.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many years ago, around the time 3.0 came out, I started telling new players to my games that the game of "D&D" was suffering from "Pinball Syndrome"

You see when I was 10 years old I loved to play pinball, bumpers would give you 10 points, targets 50, gates 100, and a ramp shot, 500. You could earn a free game if you could reach 100,000 points

By the time I was in the US NAVY, pinball machines were a little more sophisticated (biggest change I remember was the introduction of multi-ball events), bumpers gave you 5,000 points!, targets, 10,000, and gates and ramp shots could get you 20,000 or even 50,000 points

And you could earn a free game at 5,000,000 points!

It was still, however, a table with a glass cover, a steel ball, and flashing lights.

In my first game of D&D, goblins had 7 hit points and every weapon did 1d6 damage. A first level fighter could, on average, kill a goblin in two or three hits

When 4th edition came out, players could now, at first level, do incredible amounts of damage, and Goblins had something like 30 hit points

So, you basically killed them in two or three hits

So, yeah, how is it "Nerfed" exactly? Definitely thinking it's time to stop feeding the troll


I guess since the numbers are smaller all around, it is nerfed. Once you have seen big numbers, small numbers are nerfed.

I honestly don't know.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
of course they shut themselves down...as well as any other caster in the field.

Any that are within 10ft of you. I hope that you are equipped with Improved Trip or something else that actually allows you to keep them within 10ft of you.


Terquem wrote:


In my first game of D&D, goblins had 7 hit points and every weapon did 1d6 damage. A first level fighter could, on average, kill a goblin in two or three hits

When 4th edition came out, players could now, at first level, do incredible amounts of damage, and Goblins had something like 30 hit points

So, you basically killed them in two or three hits

So, yeah, how is it "Nerfed" exactly? Definitely thinking it's time to stop feeding the troll

What edition was that first one?

I remember goblins having 1d8-1 HD in Moldvay Basic and 1e AD&D so the basic set 1d6 weapons would take them out in 1 or two hits. And with strength bonuses starting at Str 13 in Basic one shotting would be even more likely.

Of course 1st level characters were really vulnerable to one shotting as well.


Palace of the Vampire Queen was my first adventure, in 1976-77, and the goblins had from 2-5 hit points as listed, but our DM would usually throw in random encounters with better armed, and armored, Goblins with 7 hit points, I think because we had a large party (eight dwarves).


thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.
It is not nerfed, it is a different f$%#ing system.

No. No. The numbers are smaller. That means it's nerfed.

LOL,Jeff. Sadly, that is how some people think. A group at my LGS that I know are min/max munchkins were blasting 5e due to there being so small numbers, so it must've gotten nerfed. I was going to ask them if they've actually played a game, but didnt feel like wasting time I'll never get back.

my favorite parts of 5e are the backgrounds and advantage/disadvantage mechanic. And I definitely like the lesser amount of numbers to deal with. Like I said before, the only thing I wish they would've done is spread the saves around the abilities more, so there's more of a downside to dumping stats.


houstonderek wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.
Gotta love Palladium. Making every other game system in existence seem weak and sickly since 1981.

Going the other direction would be DC Adventures, which nerfed everything so hard that Superman only has a Str of 19! (Although it's 23 for lifting and moving things.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:


...Like I said before, the only thing I wish they would've done is spread the saves around the abilities more, so there's more of a downside to dumping stats.

I was surprised to see that compulsion spells like Charm Person and Command (to name a few) were Wisdom saves when they seem like natural candidates to be Charisma saves.

Grand Lodge

Logan1138 wrote:
lorenlord wrote:


...Like I said before, the only thing I wish they would've done is spread the saves around the abilities more, so there's more of a downside to dumping stats.
I was surprised to see that compulsion spells like Charm Person and Command (to name a few) were Wisdom saves when they seem like natural candidates to be Charisma saves.

I think they decided Charisma is almost specifically related to outsider/undead sorta stuff ---- banishment, possession, haunting, etc. The only exception I found was Nothics, who require a Charisma save in order not to reveal a secret about yourself to them.

Grand Lodge

Voadam wrote:
I remember goblins having 1d8-1 HD in Moldvay Basic and 1e AD&D so the basic set 1d6 weapons would take them out in 1 or two hits.

In 1st edition AD&D, goblins are listed as having 1-7 hit points in the Monster Manual. In 2nd edition AD&D as well as in Original D&D (i.e. the 1974 edition), they have 1-1 HD (which really winds up being the same as having 1-7 hit points)...

Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.


Digitalelf wrote:


Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GreyHawk for the Win!!!!

I always use Greyhawk!!!


R_Chance wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:


Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.
Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.

According to one of the players, Gygax wasn't a fan of having different weapons doing different damage and had to be persuaded to have it as an option. There were also arguments that weapon damage should be based on the HD of the user, too. In retrospect he believes Gygax was probably right. When his book comes out it sounds like it'll be a very interesting read. Old Geezer on the RPG.net forums, Mike Morcom irl, is the person in question.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some more observations from my weekly 5th ed game.

- fights last around 2 rounds on average. This has been consistent from first level through to our current 6th level

- groups of creatures that provide advantage to each other provide a much better fight than groups from pathfinder could. Groups are scary in 5th ed. as you level, you can handle being mobbed by kobolds much easier due to your hit points. However, if the battle drags on long enough, even kobolds can take down level 6 players. However, see my first point.

- my pathfinder group like the magic system in 5th ed. to them it still feels like 3.x magic, with most of the issues of 3.X casting not present. They'd change to 5th ed based on the magic and combat.

- my pathfinder group does not like the rarity of magic items in 5th ed. Part of the joy they get in playing is finding loot to buff those scores just that little bit more. 5th ed doesn't do lots of magic items, because the system doesn't need them in order to work. No need for everyone to have +5 cloaks of resistance just so you can be viable for combat.

- as a consequence of the loot system in 5th edition, my 5th ed party are more interested in driving the story forward between encounters than they are in searching for loot or shopping for items. It's a completely different feel.

I found it very interesting to compare the groups and what they wanted from the game. Seems they scratch different itches while still of pleating the same general outcome.

Cheers

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.
Gotta love Palladium. Making every other game system in existence seem weak and sickly since 1981.

Going the other direction would be DC Adventures, which nerfed everything so hard that Superman only has a Str of 19! (Although it's 23 for lifting and moving things.)

The Mayfair DC Heroes game handled scaling Superman's strength to, say, Batman's well. They used a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one, so Superman's 50 strength was magnitudes more powerful than Batman's 2.


houstonderek wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.
Gotta love Palladium. Making every other game system in existence seem weak and sickly since 1981.

Going the other direction would be DC Adventures, which nerfed everything so hard that Superman only has a Str of 19! (Although it's 23 for lifting and moving things.)

The Mayfair DC Heroes game handled scaling Superman's strength to, say, Batman's well. They used a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one, so Superman's 50 strength was magnitudes more powerful than Batman's 2.

Yes. That is still one of my favorite game systems. (They lowered Superman's strength to 25 in the 2nd edition, btw, to reflect the aftermath of the Crisis on Infinite Earths in the comics.)

DC Adventures does something similar, using the exact same rules as 3rd edition Mutants & Masterminds, so Superman can actually lift around 200,000 tons in the game. Not the Silver Age planet moving Superman, but probably stronger than the character was during much of the Golden Age.


Wrath wrote:

Some more observations from my weekly 5th ed game.

- fights last around 2 rounds on average. This has been consistent from first level through to our current 6th level

-

snips loads I agree with

I finding fights last 4-6 rounds. Consistent through the levels as the two groups I GM too are 6th. They have moved on from being terrified of kobolds to being terrified of hobgoblins


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
lorenlord wrote:


...Like I said before, the only thing I wish they would've done is spread the saves around the abilities more, so there's more of a downside to dumping stats.
I was surprised to see that compulsion spells like Charm Person and Command (to name a few) were Wisdom saves when they seem like natural candidates to be Charisma saves.
I think they decided Charisma is almost specifically related to outsider/undead sorta stuff ---- banishment, possession, haunting, etc. The only exception I found was Nothics, who require a Charisma save in order not to reveal a secret about yourself to them.

I think even a spell or 2 each level that targets a specific save is enough to make those saves important. Saves like Charisma and especially Intelligence seem to have been made more rare mainly due to so many creatures in the Monster Manual having such low scores in those stats. So many creatures were made with low Intelligence and Charisma probably for RP reasons.


Most of the animals in my games have a Charisma of 3 or less, except River Otters, man, River Otters (oh and Pandas) should have a Charisma of 20


Bluenose wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Digitalelf wrote:


Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Most weapons. If I recall, there were several with a + or - ... dagger -1, two handed sword +2... but that might be from EPT or house rules. My OD&D is in my bedroom bookshelf and the wife is asleep. She gets grumpy when I wake her up at midnight :) In any event the Greyhawk supplement dropped in 1975 which used the more typical die ranges for weapons. And weapons had a damage range for man-sized (and smaller) and large. A longsword was 1-8 / 1-12 (vs. large), a two handed sword was 1-10 / 3-18... similar, if not as complex / complete as the range of weapons / damages in 1E.

According to one of the players, Gygax wasn't a fan of having different weapons doing different damage and had to be persuaded to have it as an option. There were also arguments that weapon damage should be based on the HD of the user, too. In retrospect he believes Gygax was probably right. When his book comes out it sounds like it'll be a very interesting read. Old Geezer on the RPG.net forums, Mike Morcom irl, is the person in question.

In the original D&D combat involved using the Chainmail skirmish rules - an entirely different rule book from D&D. All weapons in that did the same damage (a "hit", translated to D&D as 1d6 damage). The hit probability was based on the weapon vs. armor type (it used 2d6 and a weapon vs. armor matrix). Daggers, for example, were less likely to hit armored characters. This meant that effectively they did less damage than say, a sword. Characters received more attacks as they leveled up. A "Hero" / 4th level Fighting Man, for example, received 4 attacks. The "optional" system introduced in D&D used a d20 and hit probability was based on character level, not weapon type. Characters received one attack (except vs. 0 level and low hit dice monster like Goblins) and, I think, the need for variable weapon damage was born. It made sense for a character to do more damage with his single attack when using a sword vs. a dagger. It also kept the relative advantage of swords over daggers consistent between the early Chainmail based system and the newer d20 optional system. In the beginning I think most D&D players were familiar with Chainmail and had it at hand. As more and more people played D&D who didn't have access to Chainmail the "optional" system came to dominate. That's imo, of course. No way to know for sure. Despite being miniature wargamers we adopted the optional system pretty quickly. Hit probability based on level seemed appropriate for a game in which characters "leveled up" and grew in power.

Well, now I need to go dig up original game booklets, supplements and, of course, Chainmail. Nostalgia ftw!


Terquem wrote:
Most of the animals in my games have a Charisma of 3 or less, except River Otters, man, River Otters (oh and Pandas) should have a Charisma of 20

How about kittens and puppies? surely you can't discount their Charisma!

On another note

Quote:


In the beginning I think most D&D players were familiar with Chainmail and had it at hand. As more and more people played D&D who didn't have access to Chainmail the "optional" system came to dominate. That's imo, of course.

Nope...I wouldn't think that at all, in fact, the problem in my lowly opinion was that most were NOT familiar with Chainmail (and in fact I haven't played it to this day, so no idea how those rules really worked. They are referenced in the booklets I have of the original D&D, but how it worked is yet a mystery to me in regards to the chainmail rules). That's why the D20 alternate gained favor and popularity in my opinion, and why almost immediately many of the ideas that went into GreyHawk were abounding.

Of course that's my opinion...I could always be wrong, but with how it became more solidified over time with the alternate system becoming the primary system...I'd say chainmail was actually not familiar to most who picked up the D&D rules.

I think chainmail gained more popularity from the D&D rules and more tried to get it...but originally I think D&D in many ways was more of a promotion of the Chainmail rules and pushing those than anything those picking up the booklets were familiar with.

After D&D came out, I think many more people became familiar with chainmail, but not enough to over ride the alternate system becoming the more popular one to game with.


"my favorite parts of 5e are the backgrounds and advantage/disadvantage mechanic. And I definitely like the lesser amount of numbers to deal with. Like I said before, the only thing I wish they would've done is spread the saves around the abilities more, so there's more of a downside to dumping stats."

In my experience numbers are far less of an issue for players who are prepared, organised and know their characters. Boring I know, but essentially one of the downsides of technology (tablets, lap-tops, programs like hero-lab)is that we use our brains less and maths is a skill like any other - use it or lose it. I manually write my characters out and so know them by heart after a few sessions due to simple repetition and use, I've ever had a problem with maths and indeed seem to know other people's character 'numbers' as well as they do. There is also something about having to input variables into a programme like hero-lad which makes it slower and the mental process is the machine not the game, give me immersion any day.

character background influencing the initial character development is something we've been doing for YEARS, so I'm not that impressed by 5's version of it. It may improve as more comes out but lets not pretend it's a sudden revelation.

Advantage/Disadvantage is fine but has also been done before.

All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:


All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
strayshift wrote:


All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.

I agree. I don't think there's any correlation between "complex" and "sophisticated" or "simple" and the reverse.

There might be a very slight correlation for introductory games, but past that I've seen no such thing. If anything my tastes have shifted in the other direction as I aged and I've seen the same in others.

I certainly don't see why 5E would only be suitable for one-offs. There's certainly no reason I can see for not playing long campaigns in it. I can see why people who are focused on the build game might expect to exhaust the mechanical design space fairly quickly, but that's still going to take multiple campaigns, even without any new releases.

I could argue that complex crunch heavy systems are loved by munchkins and power gamers, while rules light systems appeal to roleplayers who are more interested in the personality of their characters than the stats, but that would be disingenuous and doesn't really fit my experience, though it comes closer than the reverse.
There is no One True gaming system. People have different tastes and enjoy different things. Many gamers are actually capable of liking more than one system or even style of game. This is a good thing.


Sometimes less is more

A simple game engine allows you to be complex on other levels. it becomes much easier to house rule, or to give it a thematic rule that fits the game.

Mechanics don't impact your role play... except when it does. Simplicity in the system just leave more room for the rest. When I was younger and my mind was vast enough, I had room for both, but I know that with the years, I only have energy and readiness for only so much.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:

Hmmm...I'm an "older player" (age 42, began playing D&D in 1981) and I prefer the simplicity of 5E to 3.X/PF. 5E is closer to B/X and 1E in terms of options and complexity which is what I prefer. It still has a LOT of "new" stuff I don't like (spammable cantrips and non-magical healing are two examples) but I still would actually be willing to play it. I will not play 3.X/PF/4E.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a large group of players like myself (late 30's and older) who prefer 5E's simpler game to the complex "building game" of 3.X/PF/4E.

I'm also 42, playing since '83, and I couldn't agree more.

I used to believe more complexity meant a superior system.

I got better. ;-)


R_Chance wrote:
Bluenose wrote:


According to one of the players, Gygax wasn't a fan of having different weapons doing different damage and had to be persuaded to have it as an option. There were also arguments that weapon damage should be based on the HD of the user, too. In retrospect he believes Gygax was probably right. When his book comes out it sounds like it'll be a very interesting read. Old Geezer on the RPG.net forums, Mike Morcom irl, is the person in question.
In the original D&D combat involved using the Chainmail skirmish rules - an entirely different rule book from D&D. All weapons in that did the same damage (a "hit", translated to D&D as 1d6 damage).

I only recently realized this is where the term "hit die" comes from, and that "hit dice" originally meant the number of "hits" a creature would likely sustain, back when every hit die was a d6.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


I'm also 42, playing since '83, and I couldn't agree more.

I used to believe more complexity meant a superior system.

I got better. ;-)

I'm 41 and I like both. Sometimes complexity in small doses can be fun. Then again I'm a fan of Rifts so what do I know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm 51, started playing in 1976 - I like 5e, it is playable, and fun. Pathfinder upsets me, a lot these days as most of the time I cannot build any npc villain that can challenge the pcs unless I build the pcs

901 to 950 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