5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

951 to 1,000 of 1,086 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 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).

I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

Don't mention FATAL ever. Though I get the point. I'm old school as well. 5E appeals to me. I like complex crunchy systems. I also like rules light as well. To me Pathfinder is a mix of the two. Which I like as well. The whole "rpg xyz is dumbed down" is simply someone saying that they don't like the rpg while trying not to say it. It's the same in the hobby when someone goes " I'm not against change in a rpg but" then proceed to really show that they don't liek change. I also wish some would also stop talking for the me and everyone else in the hobby. Just because some don't like 5E or any other rpg does not necessairly mean that everyone else will. I'm pretty sure some old school gamer besides myself like 5E.

Silver Crusade

", but that would be disingenuous and doesn't really fit my experience, though it comes closer than the reverse. "

It would also be the Stormwind Fallacy, but I see you corrected yourself.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

their the thing. I may not like every rpg on the market. I'm not telling people not to play them. Or assume that because I dislike a rpg then everyone else will or should. Too often in the hobby their is no middle ground. It's the same logic and I use the term loosely. When someone says a rpg will fail because they don't like it. I may dislike some design elements of Pathfinder. I don't think it's going to fail.

While I like complexity it's not what the current or even some of the older generation like imo. If they did companies like Hero Games would be making a profit. As it stands HG is not dead but on life support. There more uodates on 3pp support then any new product. Gurps while still supported by Steve Jackson Games relies more heavily on Munchkin for their profits.

Developers of tabletop rpgs have to go with the trends imo. If it's more complexity then they publish rpgs with that. If it's rules light the same. I don't think were every going to see a return to rules heavy rpgs. I'm not saying they will disappear. Just that for better or worse rules light rpgs are here to stay. Nor can I see a negative. Short of the rules light rpgs not being as comprehensive. Even then I sometimes wonder if they really are rules light. Instead of one big book like Hero System 5E they spread the rules over multiple sourcebooks. It feels lighter because it's more spread out.


memorax wrote:

their the thing. I may not like every rpg on the market. I'm not telling people not to play them. Or assume that because I dislike a rpg then everyone else will or should. Too often in the hobby their is no middle ground. It's the same logic and I use the term loosely. When someone says a rpg will fail because they don't like it. I may dislike some design elements of Pathfinder. I don't think it's going to fail.

While I like complexity it's not what the current or even some of the older generation like imo. If they did companies like Hero Games would be making a profit. As it stands HG is not dead but on life support. There more uodates on 3pp support then any new product. Gurps while still supported by Steve Jackson Games relies more heavily on Munchkin for their profits.

Developers of tabletop rpgs have to go with the trends imo. If it's more complexity then they publish rpgs with that. If it's rules light the same. I don't think were every going to see a return to rules heavy rpgs. I'm not saying they will disappear. Just that for better or worse rules light rpgs are here to stay. Nor can I see a negative. Short of the rules light rpgs not being as comprehensive. Even then I sometimes wonder if they really are rules light. Instead of one big book like Hero System 5E they spread the rules over multiple sourcebooks. It feels lighter because it's more spread out.

I'd be really hesitant to ascribe failures (or slumps) in individual game systems to something as high level as rules heavy/rules light.

Over the same years Hero and GURPS haven't been doing great, Pathfinder has been growing. And SJG has been supported by Munchkin for years, IIRC. There may well be other trends or internal reasons that explain their decline.

Rules light games are here to stay, of course. They've been here to stay for decades. Depending on where you draw the line, the early 80s at least.

Rule heavy games are here to stay as well.

Different people will still like each and some will like both for different things. Which games are most popular will change and that may make it look like rules light is winning or rules heavy is, but I doubt it's nearly that simple.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu 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).
I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

Its the good old Hegelian fallacy, everything that is later/more evolved must be better. The delusion that we must 'move forward,' constantly even if nobody's sure what we're moving forward to.

I actually like what I see of 5e more then 4e. It still has some problems, but I like a return to a nice, simple 'just-so' system. When someone complained it was like 2e, I found myself liking it even more.

I think I said something back on like...page 2..8? A while ago on this thread about how I like the fact that 5e doesn't have the same 'magic deck' feel that 3e saddled us with.

The game should be about the playing, not the building and theory crafting.

I've seen Warhammer players and Magic: The Gathering players who literally would just discuss what armies/decks they had, their compositions and then run numbers based on what the internet determined their relative probabilities of victory against the other was instead of actually playing the game.

I don't want to see RPGs end up in the same place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Then again I'm a fan of Rifts...

I think they have a topical cream for that. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


I'd be really hesitant to ascribe failures (or slumps) in individual game systems to something as high level as rules heavy/rules light.

I think it is a factor a big one imo. I used to just be a fan of rulesheavy rpgs. Over the years I went more towards rules light. I still enjoy rules heavy. It's not my preference. At the same time I think some in the hobby put up with rules heavy rpgs because at the time that was the only thing avaliable imo. When rules light came out being easier and faster and to learn. They went towards that. Look at the market. The main non-D&D rpgs of the moment are Fate followed by Savage Worlds. I have yet to see any new rpg that is rules heavy become popular. I might be wrong and they may very well be. So far I'm not seeing anyone releasing it.

thejeff wrote:


Over the same years Hero and GURPS haven't been doing great, Pathfinder has been growing. And SJG has been supported by Munchkin for years, IIRC. There may well be other trends or internal reasons that explain their decline.

With Hero the 5E of the book is very large. Already some who wanted to get back into the system were frightened away. With 6E they catered just to the hardcore fanabse. With no real significant changes to the system. No attempt to reduce the complexity. Made worse that it became two big books. It was almost like they listened to no one but the hardcore fans. Between the cost of both books.The cost of publishing both books. No attempt to offer much in terms of new material in a new edition. Think a 3.5. to PF. The trend towards rules light games. Vastly overestimating the popularity of the system. Compared to D&D fans the number of Hero System fans imo is nowhere even close. It was a disaster imo waiting to happen.

I think people in the hobby forget. If for example I dislike rules heavy/complex systems. Why would I invest in it another time. If the changes between editions is so small again why invest. Having bought both core books. I returned 6E and am sticking with 5E. More support and no real incentive to switch over. I liked the changes in 6E. The price tag was simply not worth it imo.

thejeff wrote:


Different people will still like each and some will like both for different things. Which games are most popular will change and that may make it look like rules light is winning or rules heavy is, but I doubt it's nearly that simple.

I think to a certain extent it is that simple. Why use the rpg that is more complex. When one can do the same in a rules light rpg. Maybe it's a changing community of gamers. To be honest I don't know. Rules complex rpgs are here to stay to be sure. I just don't see the trend suddenly revering from rules light ro complex anytime soon.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:


I think they have a topical cream for that. ;-)

LOL

Having played third edition then some 4E and now Pathfinder. I'm actually enjoying reading my Rifts books again. From the balance and nerfs of third edition and Pathfinder. To set of rules that for the most part tosses balance out the window is refreshing.


I have played a lot of 3.5/Pathfinder and I like it but my big gripe with it is not the rules and calculations that you can do before playing. It is the things that you constantly have to refer to while playing. Some examples are the 11 different types of concentration checks in the Pathfinder core rule book, or the rules for Dispel Magic (are you targeting the spell, a creature, or an area?). Memorizing these is not easy and it can get annoying to have to look up the rules over and over, and it slows the game quite a lot. Grapple is another classic example.

The best part of 5th edition is that these types of rules are simplified. Otherwise it is a wash to me. The customization level seems about the same for characters, monster and the rules set in general.


Spook205 wrote:


The game should be about the playing, not the building and theory crafting.

I've seen Warhammer players and Magic: The Gathering players who literally would just discuss what armies/decks they had, their compositions and then run numbers based on what the internet determined their relative probabilities of victory against the other was instead of actually playing the game.

I don't want to see RPGs end up in the same place.

I'm a big Warhammer Fantasy player, been playing for about 20 years, and I can't tell you how many times I've walked into my LGS and there are guys there with their armies out, just sitting and theorycrafting against each other (or Mathammering as we came to call it) instead of actually rolling dice and playing the game out. It amazes me.


4 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.

Another older player here. I started playing D&D in 1974. I'm 56 :) 5E is looking pretty good. For me, it's about the world and the adventure, not the perfect character build.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


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.

We were all miniature wargamers in the groups I knew back in the day. Chainmail was our "gateway drug" :) TSR even advertised D&D as a "fantasy miniature wargame" as I recall. And Chainmail was their big seller. It took TSR quite a while to sell through their first printing of D&D. Up until D&D all TSR made was miniature wargame rules. Before TSR Chainmail was published by Guidon. D&D appealed to other people too of course. And subsequest printings sold rapidly. I'd guess local experiences with this will be varied and anecdotal.

*edit* I just grabbed a whitebox copy off my shelf and it's subtitled as "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures". Our old woodgrain box label said the same thing iirc. It's squirreled away at my brothers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
Kthulhu 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).
I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

The game should be about the playing, not the building and theory crafting.

I've seen Warhammer players and Magic: The Gathering players who literally would just discuss what armies/decks they had, their compositions and then run numbers based on what the internet determined their relative probabilities of victory against the other was instead of actually playing the game.

I don't want to see RPGs end up in the same place.

I think we are beyond that point. Though most of that happens on the internet. Just look at the Rules portion of Paizo's forum, and other such. What you described sounds like a lot of threads on this forum, as well as the WotC forum, and I am sure enworld, rpg.net, and every other forum.

As for the strayshift quote... I facepalmed pretty hard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*joins the 40somethings*

I think, sadly, a lot of us have forgotten what it was like when we first found the game. Whether it was the booklets, a basic set, or in my case, the coloring album, it was a discovery of something *new*. Sure, we probably introduce our younger children, nieces, nephews, etc to the game now, but even then, we aren't and we shouldn't be, Hasbro's target audience. This exercise in comparison is, ultimately useless.

Hasbro and WotC should not be targeting me as a customer, or any of us. They shouldn't be competing with Paizo or OSRIC or Indie Press either. They really need to be looking for a way to build and market something to the tween crowd. If WotC (or Paizo) doesn't find a way to do that, then this hobby is as good as dead. It will further fracture and shrink until it is no longer profitable, even if it takes another decade to do it. Parents introducing their kids isn't enough in my mind. There needs to be another re-surgence in the youth segment on a larger scale to truely make a difference to this industry.

Honestly, I don't care what they change or how crazy their product ends up being, as long as that is their goal. I have 5 versions of D&D on my shelf at home with an avalanche of material for 4 of them. I'm completely and totally ok with a new generation finally getting one of their own, no matter how foreign it might look to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I'd be really hesitant to ascribe failures (or slumps) in individual game systems to something as high level as rules heavy/rules light.

I think it is a factor a big one imo. I used to just be a fan of rulesheavy rpgs. Over the years I went more towards rules light. I still enjoy rules heavy. It's not my preference. At the same time I think some in the hobby put up with rules heavy rpgs because at the time that was the only thing avaliable imo. When rules light came out being easier and faster and to learn. They went towards that. Look at the market. The main non-D&D rpgs of the moment are Fate followed by Savage Worlds. I have yet to see any new rpg that is rules heavy become popular. I might be wrong and they may very well be. So far I'm not seeing anyone releasing it.

thejeff wrote:


Over the same years Hero and GURPS haven't been doing great, Pathfinder has been growing. And SJG has been supported by Munchkin for years, IIRC. There may well be other trends or internal reasons that explain their decline.

With Hero the 5E of the book is very large. Already some who wanted to get back into the system were frightened away. With 6E they catered just to the hardcore fanabse. With no real significant changes to the system. No attempt to reduce the complexity. Made worse that it became two big books. It was almost like they listened to no one but the hardcore fans. Between the cost of both books.The cost of publishing both books. No attempt to offer much in terms of new material in a new edition. Think a 3.5. to PF. The trend towards rules light games. Vastly overestimating the popularity of the system. Compared to D&D fans the number of Hero System fans imo is nowhere even close. It was a disaster imo waiting to happen.

I think people in the hobby forget. If for example I dislike rules heavy/complex systems. Why would I invest in it another time. If the changes between editions is so small again why invest. Having bought both core books. I returned 6E and am sticking with 5E. More support and no real incentive to switch over. I liked the changes in 6E. The price tag was simply not worth it imo.
thejeff wrote:
Different people will still like each and some will like both for different things. Which games are most popular will change and that may make it look like rules light is winning or rules heavy is, but I doubt it's nearly that simple.
I think to a certain extent it is that simple. Why use the rpg that is more complex. When one can do the same in a rules light rpg. Maybe it's a changing community of gamers. To be honest I don't know. Rules complex rpgs are here to stay to be sure. I just don't see the trend suddenly revering from rules light ro complex anytime soon.

Because some people actually like complex systems. There have been plenty of people in this thread and others saying how they're not interested in 5e for more than an intro or one-off, because it's "dumbed down" and simplistic.

It's not my preference, but plenty of people do like the complexity. Plenty of people like the build game of character design. It's a large part of what made 3.x popular and a large part of what's kept PF popular. There have always been rules light games, since the early days of rpgs and there have always been rules heavy ones. I really doubt people have always been stuck playing heavy rpgs because they had no choice and are finally going to be freed to play light games.

Obviously, if you dislike rules-heavy games, there's no reason for you to invest in one. There's also no reason for you to invest in rules light games if you prefer heavy ones. Or SF if you prefer fantasy. Or generic systems if you prefer games that come with setting and are designed for a specific style. Or any other divisions you choose.

Liberty's Edge

Again I'm not saying complex rpgs or rules are not popular. I don't think it's as popular as it used to be imo. As for the popularity of Pathfinder some of it is due to character design and the somewhat modular aspect of the system. Some because it's D&D. Which is one of the more popular rpgs on the market. One can't go wrong in writing material for D&D imo. It's also the general change in outlook of the gaming population as well imo. Make a character as fast as possible with the least amount of rules as possible imo. I don't agree with that yet I also can't fault such a philosophy. If there was a miracle pill to lose weight over dieting and exercise I would take the miracle pill in a heartbeat.


I don't want to play a role paying game that requires more forethought than I am willing to put into my real life

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer games where you spend more time adventuring with the character than creating him / leveling him up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For me and most of my group it wasn't the complexity of character build that was a major contributor to making 3.x popular.

It was that it had a robust system for a tactical level combat. Things like flanking, attacks of opportunity, 5' step, straight line charging, miniature scale movement etc all were new for d&d. We had rarely used mini before because combat didn't really benefit from it. AD&D was more about resource management - combats were simpler - fighters at the front, magic users at the back hand wave the rest.

Suddenly 3.x added a tactical combat game to the roleplaying, adventure, storytelling game that had always been D&D.

Now I agree that the character build part was initially fun too but that side of it became more and more like homework. The imbalance between characters, problems that were created by things going slightly wrong, the maths to check each round based on buffs and the like became frustrating. But having been exposed to the added tactical element for my group we couldn't go back totally to the hand wave tactics of previous editions - not when playing D&D. I mean, we could do it a bit, but those tactical combats were fun.

So if 5e can be a roleplaying, storytelling, adventure, tactical game without making any part too complicated I am in.

Oh and I am 47 and started with the basic set in 79.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
Kthulhu 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).
I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

The game should be about the playing, not the building and theory crafting.

I've seen Warhammer players and Magic: The Gathering players who literally would just discuss what armies/decks they had, their compositions and then run numbers based on what the internet determined their relative probabilities of victory against the other was instead of actually playing the game.

I don't want to see RPGs end up in the same place.

I think we are beyond that point. Though most of that happens on the internet. Just look at the Rules portion of Paizo's forum, and other such. What you described sounds like a lot of threads on this forum, as well as the WotC forum, and I am sure enworld, rpg.net, and every other forum.

As for the strayshift quote... I facepalmed pretty hard.

The rules forum I actually like to pop into a lot (its like legal arguments, they're kinda fun).

But just because some people have fallen to the darkness of Mathfinder doesn't mean that we need to abandon attempts to push back the clock.

As I stated, people have this deluded and wrongheaded belief that positive change only occurs in the 'progressive' or ever changing direction. Sometimes you have to say 'we changed things, it didn't work out, let's go back.'

I think part of the issue we have is the source of what brings people into fantasy RPGs has changed. Most of us older grognards came in through Tolkien, Conan and Elric.

We watched Hawk the Slayer and other atrociously wonderful movies because they were all we had for a 'dnd movie.'

These days the gateways are stuff like Slayers, Bleach, Attack on Titan, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Lord of the Rings movies, Harry Potter and the like. It creates an entirely different set of base assumptions.

Also, its my belief our hobby won't do well if its designed solely for the super-competent 'I have my degree in wizard' stuff we occasionally see on these and other forums. I remember people complaining because APs were too easy, or were obviously designed to cater to people who didn't have their experience.

I want high school kids to pick us up for a game where they get to be elves and dwarves. I want them to have the same sort of stupid in jokes we did.

I want them to have fun.

I don't think they need to have an engineering degree, or a grasp of advanced statistics to do so.

So I think 5e is good as a gateway. You can do deep stuff with it, but its a good fun system, it ties in with the ideal of classes being something special that do something special and can be summed up easilly (fighter fights! wizard casts! Warlock does creepy stuff!).

You don't /need/ feats. You don't need to worry about that sort of stuff. You aren't trying to get your numbers through the stratosphere or chortle about how with xyz modifier per raw nobody can resist the desire to scarf down the chicken sandwiches you make.

And so, I think its a positive change.

FASA's Shadowrun, FATAL, and others are systems that were very indepth, very complex, with a lot of chances for variety. I'll also point out that as much as some of us liked Shadowrun games we were in, the rules were an absolute atrocity to run. In a similar vein, amongst some of my old friends it used to be a joke that you needed a slide-rule and ENIAC on speed dial to play Mechwarrior.

Sometimes you just want to hit stuff with your sword, cast a spell, rescue a princess, and get some loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 said wrote:
As I stated, people have this deluded and wrongheaded belief that positive change only occurs in the 'progressive' or ever changing direction. Sometimes you have to say 'we changed things, it didn't work out, let's go back.'

Too bad that will never happen. Like you said, people seem to have it in their head that the only good things are the new and different, and going back to something means you are doing it wrong. Which is funny, since Pathfinder wasn't the "new and different" edition around 2008-2009 and was the "old and bad" with a slightly new paintjob (like 1 shade darker red painted over the slightly lighter red).

But going back to something older and simpler? How dare you!

I actually really love 5th edition, and came out at the perfect time for me. I had just finished a year long Wrath of the Righteous game that practically turned me off of Pathfinder. In hindsight, I should have stopped back in January when the fun stopped, but I really liked the DM and was hoping it would get better. I was wrong, and dreaded the day when we played each week. It wasn't so much just that game by itself, but the culmination of 2.5 years of players that were very similar in every Pathfinder game I tried (except for 1 group, who actually meshed with my playstyle).

So, with 5th edition, I have been lucky to play with 2 groups, and both meshed well with my playstyle, which isn't 100% combat like all but 1 group of Pathfinder players have been into. So far, the simpler nature of 5th edition seems to attract the more roleplay-centered people instead of the more combat-centered people that I ran into all the time with Pathfinder. Not saying combat-centric games are bad, but they aren't for me.

5th edition feels like a more modern take on 2nd edition AD&D, to me. I am really happy with 5th edition's place, though I would like a bit more options when it comes to races and subclasses, but I hope that there will be some of those coming down the pipeline.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Spook205 said wrote:
As I stated, people have this deluded and wrongheaded belief that positive change only occurs in the 'progressive' or ever changing direction. Sometimes you have to say 'we changed things, it didn't work out, let's go back.'

Too bad that will never happen. Like you said, people seem to have it in their head that the only good things are the new and different, and going back to something means you are doing it wrong. Which is funny, since Pathfinder wasn't the "new and different" edition around 2008-2009 and was the "old and bad" with a slightly new paintjob (like 1 shade darker red painted over the slightly lighter red).

But going back to something older and simpler? How dare you!

I'm not sure that's a general rule at all. Resistance to any change is pretty common, certainly. Nostalgia for the good old days is also plenty common.

Reaction to 5E seems to be much more positive than to 4E, which seems to point towards people being more willing to move back towards an older style system than forward to something completely different. OTOH, it could just be a different attitude today than then. Or 5E could just be a "better" game than 4E.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Spook205 said wrote:
As I stated, people have this deluded and wrongheaded belief that positive change only occurs in the 'progressive' or ever changing direction. Sometimes you have to say 'we changed things, it didn't work out, let's go back.'

Too bad that will never happen. Like you said, people seem to have it in their head that the only good things are the new and different, and going back to something means you are doing it wrong. Which is funny, since Pathfinder wasn't the "new and different" edition around 2008-2009 and was the "old and bad" with a slightly new paintjob (like 1 shade darker red painted over the slightly lighter red).

But going back to something older and simpler? How dare you!

I'm not sure that's a general rule at all. Resistance to any change is pretty common, certainly. Nostalgia for the good old days is also plenty common.

Reaction to 5E seems to be much more positive than to 4E, which seems to point towards people being more willing to move back towards an older style system than forward to something completely different. OTOH, it could just be a different attitude today than then. Or 5E could just be a "better" game than 4E.

Well, I guess, considering that a lot of feedback from the old school guys (me included) seems to be saying it's like 3e if 3e had been based on 2e, rather than a reworking of the system, the nostalgia angle is confirmed to my satisfaction.

I think the attitude might just be 3x burnout after fourteen years. I think that's another reason 3x took off like it did. Even with Skills and Powers, 2e was a continuation of the same basic game play from 1979 (the first year AD&D was complete) until 3.0. People were looking for something different, and 3x seemed shiny and bright. The new car smell wore off, and, even with the Pathfinder rebuild, the chassis is still long in the tooth. 5e is reminiscent of something old while still being fresh and different enough to tickle the need for new and shiny.

I won't comment on the relative worth of 4e compared to 5e. I didn't play enough 4e to really get into the nitty gritty of the system. But, I did like 5e better at first glance. I like my sacred cows, what can I say. And, I think that might be a difference as well. Enough people made it clear that those sacred cows were what made the game "D&D" to them that it split the base, with 4e being the smaller part of the split. The whole 4e thing really ticked a lot of people off, mostly for reasons that really had nothing to do with the game itself. They avoided that kind of thing this time around.

WotC, by restoring them, positioned 5e well to take advantage of some 3.x fatigue, Pathfinder tying itself to Golarion and PFS enough to take a little of the old school "D&D" feel away, and older players who want to play, and make their own stuff, but don't have the time commitment (due to families, careers, etc) to give PF/3x a proper prepping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I'd say 2e was a continuation of the same game since 1975. OD&D really melds into AD&D as the same game in many ways, but AD&D took a lot of the supplements, additions, articles, and extraneous rules and melded them into one codified and solidified ruleset as opposed to what had been going on prior to that.

If you had played OD&D with the alternate combat rules and progressively adding to it as more came along, it was surprisingly a LOT like what AD&D looked like.

IMO.

So, basically 25 years of the same game...which was tossed out in favor of the new game called 3e.

You actually might be onto something, I hadn't thought of that.

If you are right, even with a few, and the 3e chasis has been around for 14 years (working on 15), than I guess that's been a while as well.

Even 4e was really 3e (if people looked at it, which they didn't normally, it had the 3e chasis of 3 saves, ascending AC, D20 modifiers similar to 3.X, etc) modified to have independent powers (and it was that entire power thing for each class at each level which made 4e more complex...take that away and you have something probably on par with 5e or even less complex).

So you could be right, people were ready for a change up after 14-15 years of a 3e chasis.

But with 4e, that chasis had been around for under a decade, and perhaps that played a LOT into it as well. Too little time had passed for a change up in style.

I know myself, that I am not really fond of 5e. I've tried, truly tried...but thus far cannot seem to get enthused or excited about it. However, it does seem to have more acceptance about it than 4e, and perhaps the reason is the time the chasis of a previous edition has been used.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:

Another older player here. I started playing D&D in 1974. I'm 56 :) 5E is looking pretty good. For me, it's about the world and the adventure, not the perfect character build.

I started in '79 and I feel the same way...the personality I instill in the character has more to do with who he/she is than any mechanics. I love the options presented in 5E and think that they make a great base to build on. I find the game to be quick, fun and easy to play. This is a welcome relief after spending huge tracts of time creating PCs, NPCs, and customizing monsters. I haven't DMed 5e much but I find that enjoyable also.

Kthulhu wrote:

I prefer games where you spend more time adventuring with the character than creating him / leveling him up.

Also agreed...the games I have played in 5E have awesome pacing to them and at the end of a night I feel like we have accomplished something and advanced the storyline well. In 3.5/Pathfinder I found that often a whole night was spent clearing 2-3 rooms of a dungeon and it sometimes took weeks to get out of dungeon combat mode and into some story advancement.


Yep. Tonight's HOTDQ session got lots done. Pace is the number one thing 5th has injected back in. And movement in combat. The two things dnd5 has given me is pace and movement in combat and a really flexible magic system. The three things that...............


thenovalord wrote:
Yep. Tonight's HOTDQ session got lots done. Pace is the number one thing 5th has injected back in. And movement in combat. The two things dnd5 has given me is pace and movement in combat and a really flexible magic system. The three things that...............

I've had the same experience with 5e. Our d&d encounters table didn't make this week, so I sat in on another. I rolled up a level 3 Druid (a class I hadn't built before in 5e) with zero prep in about ten minutes, and we were off.


Southeast Jerome wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Yep. Tonight's HOTDQ session got lots done. Pace is the number one thing 5th has injected back in. And movement in combat. The two things dnd5 has given me is pace and movement in combat and a really flexible magic system. The three things that...............
I've had the same experience with 5e. Our d&d encounters table didn't make this week, so I sat in on another. I rolled up a level 3 Druid (a class I hadn't built before in 5e) with zero prep in about ten minutes, and we were off.

Yet it's still not a particularly quick system compared to real rules-light games, and gets slower at higher levels.


I play lots rules light game / gm less games
. As they have lots more narrative and 'conflict' rather than 'task' resolution, they can get slow in their own ways
I'm sure at level 10 or so dnd5 will slow
Trying it with 6 players for first time on Sunday so will see how that goes


Bluenose wrote:
Southeast Jerome wrote:
I've had the same experience with 5e. Our d&d encounters table didn't make this week, so I sat in on another. I rolled up a level 3 Druid (a class I hadn't built before in 5e) with zero prep in about ten minutes, and we were off.
Yet it's still not a particularly quick system compared to real rules-light games, and gets slower at higher levels.

That's fair. I'm not looking for lightning fast - my ideal system is somewhere between 5e and pathfinder in complexity - but I like that the default for 5e is simple enough that it's easy to just sit down and play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really really like the 5E. It's simpler, quicker, with much more importance for the roleplaying part of the game. You can push a chair between the legs of someone even if you're not a trip specialist. You can put some beer in the eyes of the thug witout the feat tree of dirty tricks.

You also have a lots of possibilities with just one book. The archetypes selection allows diversity and simplicity. And last but not least the different options are much more equals. Pathfinder is suffering from way to much bad options or useless feats. Or too much rules.

So for the system: all hail to 5E. However and whitout a doubt: from art and storyline perspective: Golarion and Wayne Reynolds wins. Always. All the time. Best setting ever, you can do whatever you want. Go from Egypt to space in a blink. I can't wait to have a good and quick way to translate PF monster to 5E. Then it's directly PFS scenario and home made adventures in Golarion. THe Forgotten Realms seems too simple for me today. Maybe Eberron or Dark Sun, but still prefer Golarion. And the adventures path are still ahead.

Sorry for my english.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This:

This happened in this afternoon’s game with my newish group in Nottingham….

Bronan* the Barbarian  5th level human barbarian with the urchin background…he is raging and in a frenzy

The party are scattered amongst the rooftops, towers and battlements of an ancient castle

On his turn: He swings his greataxe at the now battered gargoyle he is fighting, and fells it with his attack action. He then begins to move, sliding 10ft down a slight inclined roof and uses his extra attack to strike at a guardian drake that is bothering the sorcerer in the party. He rolls a 20, an automatic crit now, and sends the dead drake tumbling over the battlements. Continuing his move along the battlements he then jumps the gap where the walkways have all crumbled. Using his bonus action he swings and hits another gargoyle that the ranger and bard have been engaged with. He rolls poor damage and just fails to kill it shame.

His turns end.

---------------
For someone like me who both likes d20 and games to play fast this is a dream come true. Having played the static WW1-like combat of Pathfinder for years I am now total fan boy of the WW2-war of manoeuvre that DND 5 brings.
The numbers stay nice and manageable (Bronan has AC 15, +6 to hit and did d12+3 damage)
I do hope it is a commercial success
It should given the massed £100s we in Derby have already spent on it!
*I actually love this character name and it fits his personality, bonds, flaws etc very nicely


Alright so I'm gonna start this post off saying that I have only played one campaign set in 5th edition using the Tyranny of Dragons adventure book and playing Bard (a class I have never played before but heard good things about).

I, personally, found the whole experience to be really boring. Throughout the campaign the only way my character really felt like he had changed was in his spell list, even in the spell list though I felt like I was just choosing what charm I thought was most amusing at the time. I didn't really roll dice unless it was for some skill check and for those checks we basically just threw dice at them until one of us succeeded (It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th level that my diplomacy checks got more than 2 points higher than the party warlock and I'm the bard). On top of that there was rarely a fight that I didn't just rehash the same spells I used the last encounter. The DM tried his hardest to make things interesting but my character, my window to the story, was so static that when he threw us up against the harder stuff I was at first afraid, because I didn't feel stronger, then I found out that in reality the bosses weren't all that stronger than their lesser bandit brother in. Sure they would have one new ability that they would use every turn, but it was still hard for me to keep myself from rolling my eyes when my paladin started calling my name praying for heals when the enemy had barely scratched him. I also felt as if I have very few choices in how my character did things, from his leveling to his play style he followed his path like a good little elf and I was just a guy watching from a distance making notes on a piece of paper and rolling a dice.

Comparing this with the last Pathfinder campaign I played in. I found that even though the campaign was kind of excruciating due to a Dm putting in some rules and fluff that were just ridiculous in some cases, my character progressed. My hunter learned new techniques and each fight was a new lesson in ways to use my abilities. One fight I would be dodging in and out of combat with my giant vulture companion and the next I would be using my new ability to make my pet hulk out while I provided ranged support. With Pathfinder I was able to craft a character which was Mine to experience an adventure like no other and I just didn't get that feel with 5th.

From these experiences I have to say that as things stand Right Now on December 21st 2014 I prefer Pathfinder as a player. This might changes as more content is released and 5th gets a bit more crunch but for now I will be sticking with Piazo.

Note: A couple of responses to posts I have seen on this thread

1: Yes I know that 5th is new and that Pathfinder didn't have that much in the way of character uniqueness when it was first released Aaaaand I don't care. Right now I'm not playing Pathfinder the way it first came out, and I am also not playing 5th the way it will be in 3 years this is my judgement for right now.

2: In dnd my character is my window into the world and thus the way he plays is of utmost importance, this is not an opinion shared by everyone but tough, it's the same reason I don't enjoy WOW.

3: I almost forgot about the questions

Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?

I use mostly art I find on deviant art to inspire the stuff I do in games soooo.... this does not matter so much for me. No opinion

Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?

I like the umpf it gave to dex based characters and it certainly is a much better system for beginners. You grasp the concepts almost instantly and this has made it a book I will reach for when newbies ask me to run a game for them.

Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?

I dislike the progression, initial character generation remains classic but when I look back at the last 4 levels and see that the vast majority of my tactics haven't changed I get sad. Also I like big numbers, I wont lie.

Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?

Yes, I will be changing the rules for finesse weapons for my pathfinder games... not sure how much yet but it will be happening.

Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?

Content will define how the game plays out, more options for each class would be nice, maybe some more interesting spells that aren't just deal damage or control target thing in some way.


king phar wrote:

Alright so I'm gonna start this post off saying that I have only played one campaign set in 5th edition using the Tyranny of Dragons adventure book and playing Bard (a class I have never played before but heard good things about).

I, personally, found the whole experience to be really boring. Throughout the campaign the only way my character really felt like he had changed was in his spell list, even in the spell list though I felt like I was just choosing what charm I thought was most amusing at the time. I didn't really roll dice unless it was for some skill check and for those checks we basically just threw dice at them until one of us succeeded (It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th level that my diplomacy checks got more than 2 points higher than the party warlock and I'm the bard). On top of that there was rarely a fight that I didn't just rehash the same spells I used the last encounter. The DM tried his hardest to make things interesting but my character, my window to the story, was so static that when he threw us up against the harder stuff I was at first afraid, because I didn't feel stronger, then I found out that in reality the bosses weren't all that stronger than their lesser bandit brother in. Sure they would have one new ability that they would use every turn, but it was still hard for me to keep myself from rolling my eyes when my paladin started calling my name praying for heals when the enemy had barely scratched him. I also felt as if I have very few choices in how my character did things, from his leveling to his play style he followed his path like a good little elf and I was just a guy watching from a distance making notes on a piece of paper and rolling a dice.

Comparing this with the last Pathfinder campaign I played in. I found that even though the campaign was kind of excruciating due to a Dm putting in some rules and fluff that were just ridiculous in some cases, my character progressed. My hunter learned new techniques and each fight was a new lesson in ways to use my...

I prefer 5E style over PF in terms of art but that is mostly because I do not like WAR art for the most part on the covers.


Darkbridger wrote:

*joins the 40somethings*

I think, sadly, a lot of us have forgotten what it was like when we first found the game... They really need to be looking for a way to build and market something to the tween crowd. If WotC (or Paizo) doesn't find a way to do that, then this hobby is as good as dead. It will further fracture and shrink until it is no longer profitable, even if it takes another decade to do it... There needs to be another re-surgence in the youth segment on a larger scale to truly make a difference to this industry.

Honestly, I don't care what they change or how crazy their product ends up being, as long as that is their goal. I have 5 versions of D&D on my shelf at home with an avalanche of material for 4 of them. I'm completely and totally ok with a new generation finally getting one of their own, no matter how foreign it might look to me.

So many good statements on this topic thread. I would post-as-a-favorite most of them were it relevant to do so. Let me just make one observation on Darkbridger's point:

I think the Kickstarter℠ way of doing things may bring about the end you fear. Typically, most of these types of projects are so niche that, once the Backers get their SWAG, there won't be enough buyers to keep whatever it was going... without another Kickstarter℠ campaign... and the circle repeats itself.

Only, with each Kickstarter℠ campaign, the market for TTRPG products is fragmented a little further. The same "pie" of hobby-gaming money is spread a little thinner.

If the industry (in our case that would be WotC, Piazo, Kobold Press,...) doesn't work to make the hobby-gaming pie much larger, the current TTPRG economy will either fragment to death or to an ever-churning stagnation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
king phar wrote:

Alright so I'm gonna start this post off saying that I have only played one campaign set in 5th edition using the Tyranny of Dragons adventure book and playing Bard (a class I have never played before but heard good things about).

I, personally, found the whole experience to be really boring. Throughout the campaign the only way my character really felt like he had changed was in his spell list, even in the spell list though I felt like I was just choosing what charm I thought was most amusing at the time. I didn't really roll dice unless it was for some skill check and for those checks we basically just threw dice at them until one of us succeeded (It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th level that my diplomacy checks got more than 2 points higher than the party warlock and I'm the bard). On top of that there was rarely a fight that I didn't just rehash the same spells I used the last encounter. The DM tried his hardest to make things interesting but my character, my window to the story, was so static that when he threw us up against the harder stuff I was at first afraid, because I didn't feel stronger, then I found out that in reality the bosses weren't all that stronger than their lesser bandit brother in. Sure they would have one new ability that they would use every turn, but it was still hard for me to keep myself from rolling my eyes when my paladin started calling my name praying for heals when the enemy had barely scratched him. I also felt as if I have very few choices in how my character did things, from his leveling to his play style he followed his path like a good little elf and I was just a guy watching from a distance making notes on a piece of paper and rolling a dice.

Comparing this with the last Pathfinder campaign I played in. I found that even though the campaign was kind of excruciating due to a Dm putting in some rules and fluff that were just ridiculous in some cases, my character progressed. My hunter learned new techniques and each fight was a new lesson in ways to use my...

I've wondered about this dichotomy too. As well as the simple-complicated spectrum (which most of the discussion has been about) ít seems to me there's also a spectrum of how closely one likes the mechanical options provided within the character creation part of a game to replicate the flavor one is trying to portray.

It seems to me that 5E's default assumption is you can do much more without any mechanical backup - that duty falling on the DM to adjudicate rather than the rules. In Pathfinder, by contrast, there is more a general assumption that the rules empower you to do various actions/stunts and that the DM doesnt need to come up with rules, but that you cant do them without the appropriate mechanical gizmo.

We have one player in our group whose tastes in this regard mirror yours, I suspect. He's begun saying things like "well, that's not in the actual rules" when things come up in our 5E game and I suspect that in the long run he's going to find it limiting/boring in the same way that you did.

For me I find it the opposite - my pathfinder characters are all built very simply because I have no interest in the effort required to tweak them mechanically so I just make them good at one thing (and I'm not terribly good at that, so they're not even that good at it). Having done so, I cant then do anything else - since there's feats and options I should have taken but didnt, so I'm either forbidden from trying it or I'm nearly always going to fail. It seems to me these two different ways of playing arent really captured by the simple/complex dichotomy we've mainly spoken about in this thread. Nonetheless, I think it will prove a significant element long-term in which game one prefers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im in shock, cos the bard is rather cool in 5th...and isn't the auto-sing monkey he has to be in PF or everyone gets grumpy cos they aren't receiving some bonuses each round

The Warlock and the Bard should both be charismatic.....one in an alluring charming way, the other a more sinister more manipulative way

if you are rolling dice till you succeed how ism this any different to PF? Doing it this way is clearly not the spirit of the game? You have quoted two campaigns you have recently played and neither sounded great TBH!

Still each to their own. It would be a rubbish world if we all thought the same....people are dying in the RL to prevent this from happening so despite our differences of opinion we are only playing silly games afterall!. Its a good thing we can discuss what we do and don't like!

Shadow Lodge

king phar wrote:
I, personally, found the whole experience to be really boring. Throughout the campaign the only way my character really felt like he had changed was in his spell list, even in the spell list though I felt like I was just choosing what charm I thought was most amusing at the time. I didn't really roll dice unless it was for some skill check and for those checks we basically just threw dice at them until one of us succeeded (It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th level that my diplomacy checks got more than 2 points higher than the party warlock and I'm the bard).

Our experiences are very different. The bard gets to choose two different styles at some point that makes him pretty versatile. He can cast spells, he can perform martial attacks, use a shield...His spells are great, everything from thunderwave to more utilitarian spells. The bard, to me, is one of the best things about 5E.


Quark Blast wrote:
Darkbridger wrote:

*joins the 40somethings*

I think, sadly, a lot of us have forgotten what it was like when we first found the game... They really need to be looking for a way to build and market something to the tween crowd. If WotC (or Paizo) doesn't find a way to do that, then this hobby is as good as dead. It will further fracture and shrink until it is no longer profitable, even if it takes another decade to do it... There needs to be another re-surgence in the youth segment on a larger scale to truly make a difference to this industry.

Honestly, I don't care what they change or how crazy their product ends up being, as long as that is their goal. I have 5 versions of D&D on my shelf at home with an avalanche of material for 4 of them. I'm completely and totally ok with a new generation finally getting one of their own, no matter how foreign it might look to me.

So many good statements on this topic thread. I would post-as-a-favorite most of them were it relevant to do so. Let me just make one observation on Darkbridger's point:

I think the Kickstarter℠ way of doing things may bring about the end you fear. Typically, most of these types of projects are so niche that, once the Backers get their SWAG, there won't be enough buyers to keep whatever it was going... without another Kickstarter℠ campaign... and the circle repeats itself.

Only, with each Kickstarter℠ campaign, the market for TTRPG products is fragmented a little further. The same "pie" of hobby-gaming money is spread a little thinner.

If the industry (in our case that would be WotC, Piazo, Kobold Press,...) doesn't work to make the hobby-gaming pie much larger, the current TTPRG economy will either fragment to death or to an ever-churning stagnation.

To be fair, Paizo at least I believe, is trying. The Adventure Card Game and Beginner Box are decent attempts, but I have no idea if they've managed to gain significant inroads into the younger audience. I am not sure what Hasbro and WotC have planned as yet beyond the game itself. Paizo has plans for digital licensed products, and I assume Hasbro will as well eventually.

However, both companies are still approaching the problem from the existing product paradigm they are familiar with. While it may not be a completely wrong approach, I don't think it will get either company the breakthru the indusry needs. It's going to take some sort of evolutionary product to change things. Many people seem to believe that physically gathering people around a table for a game is the heart and soul of the hobby. If that is indeed true, then it is highly doubtful that it can survive in an increasingly digital world.

I remember the mid 1980s, with the increasing growth of the personal computer and computer gaming (Wizardry, Might & Magic, Ultima)... while TSR struggled to grow and remain financially viable with 2e. Then the mid 1990s... the internet explosion... the dot com bubble... TSR finally failing... more computer games (Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale)... all leading up to 3.0/3.5. Then there was the early 2000s, punctuated by the PS2, MMOs and the iPhone... and then 4e. Those of us that went through all of that are not concerned with digital competition. We grew up with and evolved with the game. But younger markets that could potentially provide new customers, have grown more competitive with each iteration.

The Exchange

The card game lets me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter and my 8 year old son all play and enjoy the game. My wife hates roleplay games, but she'll do the card game because she thinks it feels more like a board game to her.

If Paizo can get that into mainstream shops like Target, k mart and Big W (Australian shop chains) then it'll be a win and it will grow the market.

Cheers


Wrath wrote:

The card game lets me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter and my 8 year old son all play and enjoy the game. My wife hates roleplay games, but she'll do the card game because she thinks it feels more like a board game to her.

If Paizo can get that into mainstream shops like Target, k mart and Big W (Australian shop chains) then it'll be a win and it will grow the market.

Cheers

Yep. Cards is the way forward for Paizo, just look at there expanding product range now......to the detriment of (rpg) books I feel. Much wider audience and therefore cash for Card Based Games


Steve Geddes wrote:

I've wondered about this dichotomy too. As well as the simple-complicated spectrum (which most of the discussion has been about) ít seems to me there's also a spectrum of how closely one likes the mechanical options provided within the character creation part of a game to replicate the flavor one is trying to portray.

It seems to me that 5E's default assumption is you can do much more without any mechanical backup - that duty falling on the DM to adjudicate rather than the rules. In Pathfinder, by contrast, there is more a general assumption that the rules empower you to do various actions/stunts and that the DM doesnt need to come up with rules, but that you cant do them without the appropriate mechanical gizmo.

We have one player in our group whose tastes in this regard mirror yours, I suspect. He's begun saying things like "well, that's not in the actual rules" when things come up in our 5E game and I suspect that in the long run he's going to find it limiting/boring in the same way that you did.

For me I find it the opposite - my pathfinder characters are all built very simply because I have no interest in the effort required to tweak them mechanically so I just make them good at one thing (and I'm not terribly good at that, so they're not even that good at it). Having done so, I cant then do anything else - since there's feats and options I should have taken but didnt, so I'm either forbidden from trying it or I'm nearly always going to fail. It seems to me these two different ways of playing arent really captured by the simple/complex dichotomy we've mainly spoken about in this thread. Nonetheless, I think it will prove a significant element long-term in which game one prefers.

You make a great point and I must agree.


thenovalord wrote:

Im in shock, cos the bard is rather cool in 5th...and isn't the auto-sing monkey he has to be in PF or everyone gets grumpy cos they aren't receiving some bonuses each round

The Warlock and the Bard should both be charismatic.....one in an alluring charming way, the other a more sinister more manipulative way

if you are rolling dice till you succeed how ism this any different to PF? Doing it this way is clearly not the spirit of the game? You have quoted two campaigns you have recently played and neither sounded great TBH!

Still each to their own. It would be a rubbish world if we all thought the same....people are dying in the RL to prevent this from happening so despite our differences of opinion we are only playing silly games afterall!. Its a good thing we can discuss what we do and don't like!

Well in the few sessions I played a bard in pathfinder I found myself doing way more than just singing, stuff like starting a fight with an opponent fascinated and then trading into some melee spellcasting because I was ether an arcane duelist or a dervish of dawn. In general my PF bard had a lot to do every turn while in 5th I did the generally the same thing, charm highest threat target then shoot with bow until target breaks charm.

Yes Warlock and Bard are both Charasmatic but since I was only gaining 2 points for having the diplomacy skill for the first few levels we had very close to the same chance of succeeding a given diplomacy roll.

The difference is that I felt like my choices in making my character meant something. I was tied with the warlock for highest charisma and was focusing on diplomacy but it wasn't till level 3 or 4 when I got more than a 3 to 4 point lead on the Lowest charisma character. This meant that when it came to a situation it was commonly better for each character to go up and give their own diplomacy bit and then roll dice with advantages/disadvantages based on what they had said as opposed to in pathfinder where this strategy usually just leads to one character rolling badly and ruining it for the whole party.

But yes, both campaigns were kinda meh, it's just for pathfinder I found that my character progressed more as a character and my choices (in character gen/levels) had more of an effect on the game, thus even though the 5th edition game was run better I preferred the play style of the pathfinder game.


Asphere wrote:
king phar wrote:
I, personally, found the whole experience to be really boring. Throughout the campaign the only way my character really felt like he had changed was in his spell list, even in the spell list though I felt like I was just choosing what charm I thought was most amusing at the time. I didn't really roll dice unless it was for some skill check and for those checks we basically just threw dice at them until one of us succeeded (It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th level that my diplomacy checks got more than 2 points higher than the party warlock and I'm the bard).
Our experiences are very different. The bard gets to choose two different styles at some point that makes him pretty versatile. He can cast spells, he can perform martial attacks, use a shield...His spells are great, everything from thunderwave to more utilitarian spells. The bard, to me, is one of the best things about 5E.

Generally I found that when boiled down most of the spells were the same, it came to it's head when I looked at my third level spell list and found Hypnotic pattern had basically the same effect as my sleep spell but with the ability to be used on any hd of creature. Many spells were simply older spells with larger numbers and to be honest, it didn't really matter because the Dc remained the same for all of my spells, so why waist higher level spells on a big enemy with tasha's hideous laughter will put them on their ass for the next round no matter what level they are.

Then in reality each class is basically the same no matter what path/feats you choose, in pathfinder my monk based around attacking many times a round and doing more damage with each attack is completely different from my friend who takes the sensei archetype and plays a more supportive role. By contrast in 5th when my friend said he was playing monk I basically had to choose a different class because while the shadow monk might be slightly sneakier than his open handed brethren we would both be doing much of the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Wrath wrote:

The card game lets me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter and my 8 year old son all play and enjoy the game. My wife hates roleplay games, but she'll do the card game because she thinks it feels more like a board game to her.

If Paizo can get that into mainstream shops like Target, k mart and Big W (Australian shop chains) then it'll be a win and it will grow the market.

Cheers

Yep. Cards is the way forward for Paizo, just look at there expanding product range now......to the detriment of (rpg) books I feel. Much wider audience and therefore cash for Card Based Games

It may be the way forward for Paizo, but I'm not sure how much it grows the market for RPGs. While I certainly wish Paizo well in whatever whatever they're selling, outside of the tabletop RPG market it's not really going to interest me.


Exactly. It will stifflet rpg development until PF2. Feels like PF has reached its zenith and meh splatbooks are the order of the day.


thejeff wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Wrath wrote:

The card game lets me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter and my 8 year old son all play and enjoy the game. My wife hates roleplay games, but she'll do the card game because she thinks it feels more like a board game to her.

If Paizo can get that into mainstream shops like Target, k mart and Big W (Australian shop chains) then it'll be a win and it will grow the market.

Cheers

Yep. Cards is the way forward for Paizo, just look at there expanding product range now......to the detriment of (rpg) books I feel. Much wider audience and therefore cash for Card Based Games
It may be the way forward for Paizo, but I'm not sure how much it grows the market for RPGs. While I certainly wish Paizo well in whatever whatever they're selling, outside of the tabletop RPG market it's not really going to interest me.

Yeah, I am not really interested in anything outside of RPG books. Paizo's card game doesn't grab me at all. I have played Magic the Gathering multiple times before, and honestly card games (whether CCG or not) just don't interest me anymore. I lost interest in Magic as well.

I don't really know what exactly their card game is like.

Silver Crusade

thenovalord wrote:
Exactly. It will stifflet rpg development until PF2. Feels like PF has reached its zenith and meh splatbooks are the order of the day.

Off topic here, but, I prefer fluffy splatbooks to more rules. The old 'Complete Handbook' series from 2e was a high water mark for RPG books, with the ones lowest in crunch (like Paladins, Necromancers, Villains, Creative Campaigning, Priests) standing out as the most useful.

What killed TSR back in the 2e era was bad business models and reporting, a horrendously wide net of narrow usage stuff (why would I buy dark sun books if I play realms, or dragonlance if I play spelljammer), and legal issues.

For every splat from that era guys like me laud, there were ones that were absolutely awful. The issue wasn't the splat books though, it was the low quality because they were being grindhoused.

The trick with RPGs is that when the rules work, you should stop tinkering with them, but that doesn't serve the book publishing ethos RPGs work under. Paizo is a publisher.

They make RPG books because [chaika] shocking truth! [/chaika] people purchase them. Splatbooks allow for them to add breadth, get paid for books, and still produce useful content, without having to recreate new rules.

The old TSR boxed sets had a similar idea. Instead of making new rules, they gave you more opportunity to use your existing rules, breadth over depth. Paizo, from what I've seen doesn't go for the outrageous grindhouse style supplements TSR did, neither do WOTC/Hasbro for that matter.

I'd rather have more (cheaper too) books like Classic Treasures Revisited or a 5e Manual of the Planes, rather then see publishers give into some Hegelian fallacy that their rules have to constantly be evolving.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Adjule wrote:
thejeff wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Wrath wrote:

The card game lets me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter and my 8 year old son all play and enjoy the game. My wife hates roleplay games, but she'll do the card game because she thinks it feels more like a board game to her.

If Paizo can get that into mainstream shops like Target, k mart and Big W (Australian shop chains) then it'll be a win and it will grow the market.

Cheers

Yep. Cards is the way forward for Paizo, just look at there expanding product range now......to the detriment of (rpg) books I feel. Much wider audience and therefore cash for Card Based Games
It may be the way forward for Paizo, but I'm not sure how much it grows the market for RPGs. While I certainly wish Paizo well in whatever whatever they're selling, outside of the tabletop RPG market it's not really going to interest me.

Yeah, I am not really interested in anything outside of RPG books. Paizo's card game doesn't grab me at all. I have played Magic the Gathering multiple times before, and honestly card games (whether CCG or not) just don't interest me anymore. I lost interest in Magic as well.

I don't really know what exactly their card game is like.

It's worth a shot if you ever get the chance. I think it does an excellent job of capturing the "feel" of an RPG (though it's not the same thing at all).

951 to 1,000 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