5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 1,086 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I agree that we might see an OGL around summer. Since apparently WotC wants to release things maybe once every 6 months (I think I read that in the link provided by JTstorm). Having such a drought of anything would probably drive people away. Having an OGL would help alleviate that, depending on if people could get over their aversion to 3rd party stuff. I could understand it in 3rd edition, as a lot of that 3pp was absolute poop, but even Pathfinder players have an aversion to 3pp, despite quite a bit of it being on par with what Paizo puts out themselves.

So long as the 3pp stuff would be on par with what is out for Pathfinder. Though some Pathfinder 3pp stuff is pretty out there.


With the OGL, what's the point in waiting? That's why I'd be surprised to see one even at this point and even more the longer they delay.

There could be an internal divide about it, but I don't see the point in deliberately waiting.


thejeff wrote:

With the OGL, what's the point in waiting? That's why I'd be surprised to see one even at this point and even more the longer they delay.

There could be an internal divide about it, but I don't see the point in deliberately waiting.

I agree, I am mystified by this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is likely that they want the playing field to themselves for now.

I would guess that we will see something 90 days (ish) after release of the DMG. They likely want nothing to interfere with the initial sales sweet spot for the core books.


I suspect it's more that figuring out exactly what to include in the OGL and what not to include is tricky, and since the table top game development team seems to be rather small, they really don't have the ability to focus on more than one major project at a time. They don't seem to have anything beyond a few story arcs even roughly scheduled beyond the DMG, so I suspect that the OGL is on the same to do list as pretty much everything else that people are asking for.

As far as the 3PP quality goes, I think those that really want support for the system will find a way to find the quality stuff amongst the 3PP the same way they did with 3rd edition and have with PF. The range will probably be similar to the content that WotC themselves put out in the previous editions, with some really good and some really bad, and most somewhere in between, with less direct cost to WotC. Those that don't like 3PP probably don't care about a ton of support material anyway, so they will simply ignore the existence of the OGL and material published under it, be content with the limited official content released by WotC, and WotC will win because that group won't be getting annoyed at having to deal with "official" support material unduly cluttering their game up.

Given that the company behind the recently pulled digital tool is still working on their product in some form, and seem to feel fully comfortable doing so, I think it's likely that the development and release of an OGL is simply going as quickly as everything else we've seen so far, which is to say very slowly. I'd be more worried about WotC figuring out how to establish a functional digital presence than whether or not an OGL like license is coming.


Re bugleyman's point (way up thread):

Quote:
2. Ignoring the OGL. Boo! When the initial excitement wears off, plenty of people will just go back to developing OGL material. It's easier and less risky.

If game developers are smart they'll develop OGL material that handily segues into 5E as well... but overtly market it as OGL <wink>.

Re the artwork:
I now feel sorry for the guy(s) who created the halfling pieces in the 5E PHB. Several comments of "hate" in this thread reminded me it's not so well liked on other forums as well. Had to go see for myself and my verdict is to not disagree with the detractors (see pp 26, 120 & 132 for yourself). Yikes! Does 5E halfling culture practice foot-binding or what?

Shadow Lodge

2097 wrote:

Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?

The OGL is the obvious answer! Open game content FTW!

You realize that's not actually a mechanical issue, right?

Shadow Lodge

I think it's obvious that they're doing some kind of open gaming license...not necessarily the OGL v1.0a, but something. And given that several 3PP have already either released 5e supplements or are on the verge of doing so, WotC has possibly let select 3PP in on the exact terms of the license.


thejeff wrote:

With the OGL, what's the point in waiting? That's why I'd be surprised to see one even at this point and even more the longer they delay.

There could be an internal divide about it, but I don't see the point in deliberately waiting.

They did make a comment about this as I recall - it was essentially a side effect of the slow release of the core rules. They wanted to be sure the rules had been out for a while before 3PP began releasing support products.

It's possible to take that as a cover story for some deeper, machiavellian strategy, but my inclination is to take them at their word (after all, they didnt need to give a reason so lying about it would be a pretty risky strategy).

Scarab Sages

Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's obvious that they're doing some kind of open gaming license...not necessarily the OGL v1.0a, but something. And given that several 3PP have already either released 5e supplements or are on the verge of doing so, WotC has possibly let select 3PP in on the exact terms of the license.

The releases from 3PP are likely just using the OGL (which is what Frog God is doing). I believe Kenzer bypassed the GSL and OGL altogether when they released their Kalamar campaign setting for "Fourth Edition" back in 2008.


Kthulhu wrote:
You realize that's not actually a mechanical issue, right?

No,you're right. It has ramifications on the mechanics but I won't argue semantics.

But the two biggest issues so far for me personally have been OGL and Tyranny of Dragons (which I was so amped about, love Tiamat). Even though this is the "beyond 3e" section it's still Paizo's forum and I wanted to be very clear about one thing they do better, and that's OGC, so far.
Otherwise, I think 5e improves on PF in every single way.
But those are two big things even if neither is mechanical.

Liberty's Edge

I can love without a OGL. We were still gaming before Wotc bought out TSR and created one and my group still will if they don't for 5E. OGL allows for 3pp products which I do sometimes buy. It also runs the risk of creating the comptetion. So I don't blame Wotc for taking their time with it. PDFs they should release them eventually. It's a smart business decision and one way or another pirated versions will appear. Yet again we were gaming before with them and we still will.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
2097 wrote:
Oh, and I forgot to say, I really don't like adventure paths and I was disappointed that Tyranny of Dragons was one, instead of a more sandboxy campaign.

I actually love the AP style. I mean, has enough really changed that we need new Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, and/or Greyhawk source books? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to translate the previous edition's sourcebooks to make it fit, either way.

I can do sandbox-y just fine. But sometimes trying to make a coherent story come together over a period of weeks can be a little difficult if I'm on a downswing. The AP's provide a nice break from hardcore DMing to let me play on "Easy" mode for a while.

EDIT: And oh yeah, lorenlord, I'm quite pleased to see how this is going, too! Was a little worried it might devolve into a flame war, but this has been really interesting so far.


memorax wrote:
I can love without a OGL. We were still gaming before Wotc bought out TSR and created one and my group still will if they don't for 5E. OGL allows for 3pp products which I do sometimes buy. It also runs the risk of creating the comptetion. So I don't blame Wotc for taking their time with it. PDFs they should release them eventually. It's a smart business decision and one way or another pirated versions will appear. Yet again we were gaming before with them and we still will.

I wonder if it's less creating the competition than what has been seen cannot be unseen, vis-à-vis The Book of Erotic Fantasy; WotC withdrew the license for that one, and it's still infamous with the D20 logo on it, y'know?

. . .
I can love without an OGL too, Memorex, I just can't love without you! (I'm sorry man, I had to, that's a once in lifetime typo right there.)


EntrerisShadow wrote:
2097 wrote:
Oh, and I forgot to say, I really don't like adventure paths and I was disappointed that Tyranny of Dragons was one, instead of a more sandboxy campaign.

I actually love the AP style. I mean, has enough really changed that we need new Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, and/or Greyhawk source books? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to translate the previous edition's sourcebooks to make it fit, either way.

I can do sandbox-y just fine. But sometimes trying to make a coherent story come together over a period of weeks can be a little difficult if I'm on a downswing. The AP's provide a nice break from hardcore DMing to let me play on "Easy" mode for a while.

EDIT: And oh yeah, lorenlord, I'm quite pleased to see how this is going, too! Was a little worried it might devolve into a flame war, but this has been really interesting so far.

4e REALLY took the virtual flamethrower to the Forgotten Realms, so they will have to go back to 3e to return it to its former awesomeness. The other campaign settings, IIRC, remain pretty much unchanged.

But I looked at the AP's that 5e has out, and I was pretty impressed.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
I actually love the AP style. I mean, has enough really changed that we need new Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, and/or Greyhawk source books? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to translate the previous edition's sourcebooks to make it fit, either way.

I don't know that they necessarily need a full fledged campaign book for any of the setting, but at least a gazetteer or something along the lines of the inner sea primer is needed for the larger worlds. A few basic maps, a basic history, and an overview of the major regions, especially in FR, where things have changed a fair bit, is needed to give new players something to work with. Include references to older material for details on the history and regions and they can avoid repeating themselves while getting people to give the older material a fresh look.

The key to me would be to get a good solid reference book for the world as a whole out there and, for FR especially, the sooner the better. It doesn't need full details, but it needs to be able to serve as a common starting point for those more interested in finding out more than adventures and directly related material can provide.


I'm not saying go full sourcebook; their idea, to show the worlds through products that are designed to be used at the table, is great.

It's just that I would rather have hexcrawls, encounter tables, villages and dungeons (like LMoP but bigger) rather than a "go here, then go here, then go here" path like HotDQ.


2097 wrote:

I'm not saying go full sourcebook; their idea, to show the worlds through products that are designed to be used at the table, is great.

It's just that I would rather have hexcrawls, encounter tables, villages and dungeons (like LMoP but bigger) rather than a "go here, then go here, then go here" path like HotDQ.

Something like an AP or what you seem to be asking for as main source of details is great, but they still need some kind of basic gazetteer as well to fill in the overall layout and basic history and current status of the world and major regions, at least for the larger worlds like FR, Greyhawk, and Eberron. There are simply some things that need to be presented in a encyclopedia/atlas style book that isn't going to be constantly used at the table.

Something like the Inner Sea Primer that Paizo did would be sufficient, but there's a reason that Paizo did that book separate from the APs themselves. If WotC did something like that for the larger and/or more popular worlds, they could get a single source of information out there for new players while not rehashing old material any more than absolutely necessary.


Who said they aren't doing campaign setting books? The quote was just discussing the twinning of adventures with applicable rule expansions.

The adventures are obviously outsourced to other companies, so WotC must be working on some other stuff themselves, especially now that their hands are free with the core rulebooks released.

I imagine they will announce more of their product line up for 2015 soon.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

More product line in 2015...

What, NO, say it isn't so. You mean everything I want to play this game isn't available to me now, right now, immediately in downloadable format. P'shaw, the game must be a complete disaster.

Or, seriously. Look, I'm 51 years old, I started playing D&D when I was 12. The Monster Manual came out (I'm talking AD&D now, but yes my little booklets all came together, but I digress)in 1977

And then the Player's Handbook in 1978

And then the DMG in 1979,

so, yeah, I can be patient.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:


I wonder if it's less creating the competition than what has been seen cannot be unseen, vis-à-vis The Book of Erotic Fantasy; WotC withdrew the license for that one, and it's still infamous with the D20 logo on it, y'know?

With the OGL for better or worse they created their own competition in the form of Paizo. So I do think it is a major factor in their being a OGL. Or the same one. If I owned WOTC I would keep the OGL as is. Yet demand a 500-1000$ royalty a year per person using the OGL. Want to make money off my rules sure. So will I off you. To be honest a lot of the 3pp stuff under 3.5. was average to below. With very few gems. Still it might be a factor.

Hitdice wrote:


. . .
I can love without an OGL too, Memorex, I just can't love without you! (I'm sorry man, I had to, that's a once in lifetime typo right there.)

Damn autocorrect. I too can live without a OGL. I know you can show me!

lorenlord wrote:


4e REALLY took the virtual flamethrower to the Forgotten Realms, so they will have to go back to 3e to return it to its former awesomeness. The other campaign settings, IIRC, remain pretty much unchanged.

The same people who disliked the changes to 4E FR were the same ones who disliked a lot of the elements of 3E FR. Too much magic. Too many cities. The setting tied too much to the novels os the players know too much about it. Too many gods and high level mpcs. Then WOTC for better or worse listened to the feedback. Then the same posters acted as if they never disliked anything. They want the ability to complain about 3.5. rules and setting material yet at the same time want no changes at all.

lorenlord wrote:


But I looked at the AP's that 5e has out, and I was pretty impressed.

I'm going to wait and see. At least with the way npcs are designed. As the ones in the Paizo APS are mostly subpar.


memorax wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


I wonder if it's less creating the competition than what has been seen cannot be unseen, vis-à-vis The Book of Erotic Fantasy; WotC withdrew the license for that one, and it's still infamous with the D20 logo on it, y'know?
With the OGL for better or worse they created their own competition in the form of Paizo. So I do think it is a major factor in their being a OGL. Or the same one. If I owned WOTC I would keep the OGL as is. Yet demand a 500-1000$ royalty a year per person using the OGL. Want to make money off my rules sure. So will I off you. To be honest a lot of the 3pp stuff under 3.5. was average to below. With very few gems. Still it might be a factor.

That's not an OGL. That's not open.

And it's absolutely nothing for anyone making money off the OGL. And prohibitive to fan efforts.

I also suspect it's completely unenforceable, but I'm not a lawyer.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

That's not an OGL. That's not open.

And it's absolutely nothing for anyone making money off the OGL. And prohibitive to fan efforts.

I also suspect it's completely unenforceable, but I'm not a lawyer.

I disagree. Publish whatever you want. Well within reason and good taste. While I make so money off it. Why should others make money off someone else and not receive some form of compensation. If one can't afford the royalty well too bad. If a aspiring OGL can't afford to pay a 500$ fee in a year they have no business starting a business. Maybe I'm greedy I admit yet I see no reason why Wotc should not make a profit with a newer form of OGL for 5E. If you think those interested won't pay guess again they will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What you are talking about is a simple license - not an open license.

WotC is already doing that with Gale Force 9 and others.


memorax wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That's not an OGL. That's not open.

And it's absolutely nothing for anyone making money off the OGL. And prohibitive to fan efforts.

I also suspect it's completely unenforceable, but I'm not a lawyer.

I disagree. Publish whatever you want. Well within reason and good taste. While I make so money off it. Why should others make money off someone else and not receive some form of compensation. If one can't afford the royalty well too bad. If a aspiring OGL can't afford to pay a 500$ fee in a year they have no business starting a business. Maybe I'm greedy I admit yet I see no reason why Wotc should not make a profit with a newer form of OGL for 5E. If you think those interested won't pay guess again they will.

As DaveMage said.

First of all, it's not that some 3PP companies won't do so. Though some will rely on the old OGL and the various legal hacks some have used to put out versions of older editions.
But can fans and people not making money off it use it?
Could someone put up an pfsrd style website?

But more fundamentally it changes the very nature: OGL allows you to use the content, but you have to keep it under the OGL. How would this new "OGL, but you have to pay" work? If I want to use 3pp content they based on this, do I still have to pay WotC for the 3pp stuff? Pay both?

As I said, I also suspect it would be difficult to enforce. If you want them to pay you money, you really want a specific contract both sides sign.


Terquem wrote:

More product line in 2015...

What, NO, say it isn't so. You mean everything I want to play this game isn't available to me now, right now, immediately in downloadable format. P'shaw, the game must be a complete disaster.

Here's the thing, though...it's not 1977. The market has changed. The entire industry has immediate (or near immediate) PDF availability. Meanwhile, WotC can't even articulate a plan for digital books three months after the PHB was released.

The game isn't a "complete disaster;" but it is a complete non-starter for those who require electronic support. While you may not fall into that group, but you may want to consider the possibility that other people do (though admittedly that's not as entertaining as just mocking them instead).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing, it's not 1977, things have changed

well, some things have changed, and it doesn't matter to me that there is a "demand" by some types of people to have things made available to them in ways that they think are the "right" ways for things to be released.

I'm not one of them. I can wait. I don't need electronic pdf versions of the rules to play this game. I have never needed them, never will need them. That's just me.

I disagree that anyone "needs" electronic support

They may want it, and that's their choice. Me, I want a pretty pink birthday cake with my picture on it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.


Terquem wrote:

Here's the thing, it's not 1977, things have changed

well, some things have changed, and it doesn't matter to me that there is a "demand" by some types of people to have things made available to them in ways that they think are the "right" ways for things to be released.

I'm not one of them. I can wait. I don't need electronic pdf versions of the rules to play this game. I have never needed them, never will need them. That's just me.

I disagree that anyone "needs" electronic support

They may want it, and that's their choice. Me, I want a pretty pink birthday cake with my picture on it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Great. You can go ahead and buy the physical books. Those who need digital versions can wait and see if they come out.

It's a still a pretty big black eye for WotC to completely blow their initial digital plan. Even not having it ready for launch, when the hype was highest was bad marketing. Having to cancel it and not having even an announced strategy for replacement is really bad.

"Buy our product on our terms and don't whine about wanting a pretty pink birthday cake with my picture on it" is a really bad customer relations strategy. Lots of people like digital content. Find a way to sell them what they want.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you guys serious? Free pdf's of everything you "needed" were released before the Player's Handbook. Were those just not "good enough" for you?

And yes it was a black eye to drop the ball on a super bells and whistles electronic product. That must have been a set back for them, but all in all, the game, as it has been released, is a great product. Bad mouthing it because it isn't "hero labs" just seems silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
They may want it, and that's their choice. Me, I want a pretty pink birthday cake with my picture on it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Except that in 2014, literally ever other RPG I want to play is readily available in PDF. Expecting some form of electronic support for D&D is hardly unreasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
Are you guys serious? Free pdf's of everything you "needed" were released before the Player's Handbook. Were those just not "good enough" for you?

Actually, no, they weren't. If I want to play a gnome, or a druid, I need the PHB. As a consumer, I'd like to be able to purchase and consume that content in the format most convenient for me.

Just because you don't personally care about a format doesn't mean that people who do are being unreasonable. If a movie you were looking forward to owning were only released on VHS, would it be unreasonable of you to be disappointed that you can't get it on Blu-ray? Would requesting it be released in that format also be unreasonable?

Personally, I'm tired of this whole argument, but your posts really reek of "I don't want to play that way, so no one else should." Can we quit crapping on people who do want to play that way so we can stop having this inane debate?


Have you seen the Basic pdf, Bugley? I don't see how it doesn't satisfy the "some sort of electronic support" proposition.

Edit: Nevermind, you ninja'd me and pre-answered my question.


Hitdice wrote:

Have you seen the Basic pdf, Bugley? I don't see how it doesn't satisfy the "some sort of electronic support" proposition.

Edit: Nevermind, you ninja'd me and pre-answered my question.

That's how I roll, yo. :P


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Terquem wrote:
HMe, I want a pretty pink birthday cake with my picture on it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

That's actually pretty doable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Terquem wrote:
They may want it, and that's their choice. Me, I want a pretty pink birthday cake with my picture on it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Except that in 2014, literally ever other RPG I want to play is readily available in PDF. Expecting some form of electronic support for D&D is hardly unreasonable.

All the rules you need to play are available for free in pdf format. It may not have absolutely everything you could possibly want; I'd certainly prefer for the full books (with illustrations even) to be sold in pdf format. But it's a bit disingenuous to claim that there's no electronic support.


JoeJ wrote:
All the rules you need to play are available for free in pdf format. It may not have absolutely everything you could possibly want; I'd certainly prefer for the full books (with illustrations even) to be sold in pdf format. But it's a bit disingenuous to claim that there's no electronic support.

Sorry, I can't agree. As long as the answer to the question "can I leave my dead-tree PHB at home" remains no, then there is effectively no electronic support. YMMV.


Yeah, I'm happy that they released the basic rules for free in PDF, but it's a teaser designed to hook you on the system and buy the physical books, not a substitute for them.

For those who want to play without dead-tree books, it's not a substitute.

Scarab Sages

JoeJ wrote:

All the rules you need to play are available for free in pdf format. It may not have absolutely everything you could possibly want; I'd certainly prefer for the full books (with illustrations even) to be sold in pdf format. But it's a bit disingenuous to claim that there's no electronic support.

The free rules are analogous to quick start rules, which is great as an introduction to the game. What people are asking for are electronic rules for the game, not just a portion of them. Imagine being given a pre-gen character made using the PHB and not having the information because one of the 4 main classes was not used. This fails the "all the rules you need to play" stipulation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

The game isn't a "complete disaster;" but it is a complete non-starter for those who REQUIRE electronic support. While you may not fall into that group, but you may want to consider the possibility that other people do (though admittedly that's not as entertaining as just mocking them instead).

Question: How does one REQUIRE electronic support? There's a whopping 2 books out (not including adventures). So do you REQUIRE it, or is it that the digital age has jaded people and you WANT it? And a follow-up: are you also saying that there's no way you physically possibly couldve played D&D 1e or 2e, because there was no electronic support? I'm just wondering, because the REQUIRE part has me vexed.


memorax wrote:
Publish whatever you want. Well within reason and good taste. While I make so money off it. Why should others make money off someone else and not receive some form of compensation. If one can't afford the royalty well too bad. If a aspiring OGL can't afford to pay a 500$ fee in a year they have no business starting a business. Maybe I'm greedy I admit yet I see no reason why Wotc should not make a profit with a newer form of OGL for 5E. If you think those interested won't pay guess again they will.

I think you're making the same mistake wotc did when they tried to "effectively cancel" the ogl during 4E's run.

The primary publisher makes money from the OGL as the existence of a robust 3PP community drives sales of the core game. There were many people who called that out as one of the strengths of PF over 4E.


lorenlord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

The game isn't a "complete disaster;" but it is a complete non-starter for those who REQUIRE electronic support. While you may not fall into that group, but you may want to consider the possibility that other people do (though admittedly that's not as entertaining as just mocking them instead).

Question: How does one REQUIRE electronic support? There's a whopping 2 books out (not including adventures). So do you REQUIRE it, or is it that the digital age has jaded people and you WANT it? And a follow-up: are you also saying that there's no way you physically possibly couldve played D&D 1e or 2e, because there was no electronic support? I'm just wondering, because the REQUIRE part has me vexed.

Yeah, screw any customers who won't buy the dead tree books. We don't want their money!

How's that business model working out these days?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

The game isn't a "complete disaster;" but it is a complete non-starter for those who REQUIRE electronic support. While you may not fall into that group, but you may want to consider the possibility that other people do (though admittedly that's not as entertaining as just mocking them instead).

Question: How does one REQUIRE electronic support? There's a whopping 2 books out (not including adventures). So do you REQUIRE it, or is it that the digital age has jaded people and you WANT it? And a follow-up: are you also saying that there's no way you physically possibly couldve played D&D 1e or 2e, because there was no electronic support? I'm just wondering, because the REQUIRE part has me vexed.

I think he means they "require it" in order to play the way they like.

I'm happy to list running water and electricity as requirements for any home I'm going to live in, even though it's perfectly possible to live in a house without them.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think he means they "require it" in order to play the way they like.

I'm happy to list running water and electricity as requirements for any home I'm going to live in, even though it's perfectly possible to live in a house without them.

Absolutely correct. And rather obvious, I should think...but this is the Internet, after all.


These days, for anything to really thrive, yes it needs digital support. For better or for worse, the presence or lack of digital aids will be one of the determining factors in how well this system does, and the longer WotC takes to get official digital tools or pdfs out there, the more the void will be filled by others, probably less than legally, and/or the more that the younger crowd will simply ignore the system entirely. Not even putting out pdfs, something that's more or less an industry standard these days, will hurt WotC, just as it did when they ignored them in 4E. I can understand that some people don't agree with this, but that's the age we live in. The digital stuff cannot and should not ever fully replace the physical books, but it does have to be there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder vs D&D5th...

about 5th: Ilove the basic concept for the system, i mean (imho), with one twist they drop a lot of useless feats, or annoying feats ammounts (the game has almost a 3000 feats since PFRPG), in 5th there´s only 50 or so.
Skills: they do perfect, also with the attack bonus.
Spells: Im so tired to cast the same spell all the time... i dilike the spell casting system since AD&D ´till now (and mana, pool, magic points are so broken).

About PFRPG: 30+Classes ´till now which do the same as the basic 4 archetypes. Prestige classes, archetypes, feats, feats, traits, action points, mythic surge, sepells... and if you were thinking that with psionics there will be a refresh for the casting system... youre totally wrong, more spell slots as ever and the same feelling "casting the same spell ever again"

Both systems are very solid, and also, have a bunch of holes in their rules... If you mix both system replacing mechanics from one to another, probably you can create an alternate version with better perspective and so.

51 to 100 of 1,086 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique All Messageboards