5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

201 to 250 of 1,086 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

"let's talk about why 'Dwarf' should be a class and not a race" [BECMI]

no, seriously let's talk about that?

Race as class: one of the things I was glad to leave behind when I moved on from B/X to 1st Edition AD&D.


I want to play a multiclass elf/dwarf.

-The Gneech

PS: Spoiler alert, no I don't.


Terquem wrote:

"let's talk about why 'Dwarf' should be a class and not a race" [BECMI]

no, seriously let's talk about that?

I don't mind it if there are classes specific to dwarves that aren't the same as their human equivalents. It's when there's only one sort of class for adventuring dwarves that I'm rather less enthusiastic. One of those says something about how dwarf society is flavoured in the game; the other just seems a bit lazy.


I am of the same mind, where a specific class for a race is fine, but it is too limited to make a race a class without any other choices.


Why 5E only forum?

Well, 4E is a "dead" system (no longer actively supported by WotC) and 5E is not only active but will seemingly grow bigger yet. Much bigger than 4E ever did.

As for 3.x, well, PF kinda keeps that one afloat.

As for pre-3.x, well, I don't know for sure but it seems like you could roll all the pre-3.x players into one group and still not have as many players as are currently hanging onto 4E. So it makes sense that they get lumped together. Especially since the various pre-3.x rules sets seem to interplay among themselves more than they do with 3.x+ editions.


I want to like 5E but currently it's impossible if I cant read it. I've become a PDF only customer. PC, iPad, and to a lesser degree, my laptop.


Sunderstone wrote:
I want to like 5E but currently it's impossible if I cant read it. I've become a PDF only customer. PC, iPad, and to a lesser degree, my laptop.

According almost everyone at *redacted*, people like you don't exist. Either that or you must be lying. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Sunderstone wrote:
I want to like 5E but currently it's impossible if I cant read it. I've become a PDF only customer. PC, iPad, and to a lesser degree, my laptop.
According almost everyone at *redacted*, people like you don't exist. Either that or you must be lying. ;)

I read the threads there @ *redacted*world, I kinda laugh inside at the blatant fanboyism and I'm reminded again of why I stopped posting there long ago.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sunderstone wrote:
I want to like 5E but currently it's impossible if I cant read it. I've become a PDF only customer. PC, iPad, and to a lesser degree, my laptop.

Go and download the free basic rules. They will give you a good idea of how the game plays, as they contain a decent chunk of the rules and will be updated periodically as new books are released. They may not ever contain everything like the SRD does, but they are still a good place to start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And it's, *gasp* free?

The Exchange

Not only are the rules free, but so are many resources for monster stats. Also, if you get yourself into the adventure league section as an organiser, there's a large quantity of adventure material published there as well. And it is free too.

The only issue with the free stuff is you don't get the optional feats. Nor do you get all the classes and races.

However, what they do provide for free is more than enough to game with, at least until they get some sort of electronic copy up and running.

I understand your frustrations though. I run all my Paizo stuff off PDF format in my iPad. Pathfinder has gotten epic though, and I can't run it, or even develop a character for it, without electronic devices now days.

5th ed has only two rulebooks out so far, one of which I don't need at the game after I create my character since all the playing rules are in free PDF format.

The other I don't use unless I'm dming.

So really, outside of my house, if I play, I still only use the iPad.


Quark Blast wrote:
Why 5E only forum?

apparently [tags] are difficult for people?

Quark Blast wrote:
Well, 4E is a "dead" system (no longer actively supported by WotC) and 5E is not only active but will seemingly grow bigger yet. Much bigger than 4E ever did.

Oh, another E-warrior......

Quark Blast wrote:
As for 3.x, well, PF kinda keeps that one afloat.

Sorry, don't buy it. For one 3.x is just as "dead" as 4E and Pathfinder is, after 5 years, a completely different game. Every class has changed. Feats and Spells have changed. The combat-system (Combat Maneuvers, etc.) have changed. Monsters have changed. Races have changed. Basic assumptions between the two games have changed. Pathfinder, despite having some 3E basics, has significantly undergone revisions as to come into it's own game.

Quark Blast wrote:
As for pre-3.x, well, I don't know for sure but it seems like you could roll all the pre-3.x players into one group and still not have as many players as are currently hanging onto 4E. So it makes sense that they get lumped together. Especially since the various pre-3.x rules sets seem to interplay among themselves more than they do with 3.x+ editions.

You realize that a lot of 4E fans also play 5E right? So it makes sense to "lump" the two together considering that's it more likely a 4E fan will pick up 5E than someone who hasn't purchased a WotC product in almost a decade and a half (for whatever reason).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Well, 4E is a "dead" system (no longer actively supported by WotC) and 5E is not only active but will seemingly grow bigger yet. Much bigger than 4E ever did.
Oh, another E-warrior......

Technically he is correct. 4th edition is dead. Technically 3rd edition is dead, but lives on in spirit with Pathfinder. You could say the same about 4th edition living on in spirit with 13th Age. Just like Original D&D is dead but lives on with (I think, though could be wrong) Swords and Wizardry. 1st edition AD&D is dead but lives on with OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord (?). I don't think 2nd edition AD&D lives on in another system, though it is fairly similar to 1st that it's retro clones could continue 2nd edition's unlife.

But, every edition of D&D prior to 5th edition is dead in the sense that the company that owns it doesn't release anything new for it.


Yeah, that didn't particularly "edition-war-ish" to me. 4E is definitely dead as judged by several reasonable (and reasonably common) criteria. *shrug*


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

i like the picture of the halfling in the player's handbook, makes me laugh every time i see it at the bookstore:-)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Well, 4E is a "dead" system (no longer actively supported by WotC) and 5E is not only active but will seemingly grow bigger yet. Much bigger than 4E ever did.
Oh, another E-warrior......

Technically he is correct. 4th edition is dead. Technically 3rd edition is dead, but lives on in spirit with Pathfinder. You could say the same about 4th edition living on in spirit with 13th Age. Just like Original D&D is dead but lives on with (I think, though could be wrong) Swords and Wizardry. 1st edition AD&D is dead but lives on with OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord (?). I don't think 2nd edition AD&D lives on in another system, though it is fairly similar to 1st that it's retro clones could continue 2nd edition's unlife.

But, every edition of D&D prior to 5th edition is dead in the sense that the company that owns it doesn't release anything new for it.

0e - Swords & Wizardry

1e - OSRIC
2e - For Gold & Glory
Holmes Basic - BLUEHOLME
B/X Basic - Labyrinth Lord
BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia - Dark Dungeons
v3.0/v3.5 - Pathfinder RPG
4e - ???

4e is the MOST dead edition.


Adjule wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Well, 4E is a "dead" system (no longer actively supported by WotC) and 5E is not only active but will seemingly grow bigger yet. Much bigger than 4E ever did.
Oh, another E-warrior......

Technically he is correct. 4th edition is dead. Technically 3rd edition is dead, but lives on in spirit with Pathfinder. You could say the same about 4th edition living on in spirit with 13th Age. Just like Original D&D is dead but lives on with (I think, though could be wrong) Swords and Wizardry. 1st edition AD&D is dead but lives on with OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord (?). I don't think 2nd edition AD&D lives on in another system, though it is fairly similar to 1st that it's retro clones could continue 2nd edition's unlife.

But, every edition of D&D prior to 5th edition is dead in the sense that the company that owns it doesn't release anything new for it.

Yeah, what she said. :)


bugleyman wrote:

Yeah, that didn't particularly "edition-war-ish" to me. 4E is definitely dead as judged by several reasonable (and reasonably common) criteria. *shrug*

Right, I'm not "warring". Played The Keep on the Shadowfell when it was new and loved it. Since then I've been unable to find 4E groups. While it's true I don't miss playing 4E in particular, that simple fact doesn't make me an "edition warrior" either.

And as Kthulu points out - 4E is the least supported edition via fan-base and/or clone-RPGs. Not to mention it had the least support of WotC for any of their product lines to date. Again, those are just facts.


Quark Blast wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Well, 4E is a "dead" system (no longer actively supported by WotC) and 5E is not only active but will seemingly grow bigger yet. Much bigger than 4E ever did.
Oh, another E-warrior......

Technically he is correct. 4th edition is dead. Technically 3rd edition is dead, but lives on in spirit with Pathfinder. You could say the same about 4th edition living on in spirit with 13th Age. Just like Original D&D is dead but lives on with (I think, though could be wrong) Swords and Wizardry. 1st edition AD&D is dead but lives on with OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord (?). I don't think 2nd edition AD&D lives on in another system, though it is fairly similar to 1st that it's retro clones could continue 2nd edition's unlife.

But, every edition of D&D prior to 5th edition is dead in the sense that the company that owns it doesn't release anything new for it.

Yeah, what she said. :)

I'm a dude :p I know the icon is a bit misleading, but it was the best I could find.

The closest thing to a 4th edition clone is 13th Age, apparently. Looked through the book and it did feel 4th Edition-y. Though it wasn't an exact copy or such like Pathfinder is to 3rd edition. It looks like there would be so much more conversion of 4th to 13th age, compared to 3rd edition to Pathfinder.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
i like the picture of the halfling in the player's handbook, makes me laugh every time i see it at the bookstore:-)

Yeap, I laugh too as I toss the book on the shelf and pass on buying it.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
i like the picture of the halfling in the player's handbook, makes me laugh every time i see it at the bookstore:-)
Yeap, I laugh too as I toss the book on the shelf and pass on buying it.

I hated 4E, but I gave 5E a chance and I am glad I did. If you pass it up for a drawing without even looking at it, then you do yourself an injustice and should be cursing your closed-mind. It isn't perfect but is a good game with some good ingenuity and some nice mechanics. I was staunchly Pathfinder and now I am swayed to 5E and it's elegant simplicity and a return to D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fake Healer wrote:
Pan wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
i like the picture of the halfling in the player's handbook, makes me laugh every time i see it at the bookstore:-)
Yeap, I laugh too as I toss the book on the shelf and pass on buying it.
I hated 4E, but I gave 5E a chance and I am glad I did. If you pass it up for a drawing without even looking at it, then you do yourself an injustice and should be cursing your closed-mind. It isn't perfect but is a good game with some good ingenuity and some nice mechanics. I was staunchly Pathfinder and now I am swayed to 5E and it's elegant simplicity and a return to D&D.

i wish wizards all the best and i hope DnD does well, but there is no way i'll ever buy the new edition, not because i dislike it but because A) my entertainment budget is hilariously paltry, B) they haven't produced consistent adventure material for decades, i cannot afford the time to write my own (nor to be honest am i good at it) and C) refer to A.

the hilarity of the Halfling is just a bonus:-) however if you think that picture is bad, pick up a random later release of 2nd edition for some truly atrocious artwork (and rules;)

but to reiterate, i do wish them well, especially during the holidays:-)

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


Yeap, I laugh too as I toss the book on the shelf and pass on buying it.

I'm glad I'm more open minded than that. I found the art that the use to show the races on page 20 kind of annoying. It's like except for the gnome everyone seems to have a stick up their behinds. I still ended up buying the core. The image of Lem singing while a bunch of people vomit in the background was some of the worst art I have seen. I still bought the APG. If one image is the only thing stopping someone from buying a product well your were not going to buy it anyway imo.

captain yesterday wrote:


i wish wizards all the best and i hope DnD does well, but there is no way i'll ever buy the new edition, not because i dislike it but because A) my entertainment budget is hilariously paltry, B) they haven't produced consistent adventure material for decades, i cannot afford the time to write my own (nor to be honest am i good at it) and C) refer to A.

Having worked in retail one learned to focus on the clients that you know will buy something. Those that have already made up their minds or are close minded to any suggestions. If I get the impression that no matter what the buyer dislikes 5E no matter how I would try to sell it I learned to walk away and not waste my time making a sale. The funny thing is I find myself in the exact same situation. I was working when I bought the 5E PHB and MM. While probably buy the 5E DMG to complete the set. Until I find work I'm cutting back on gaming purchases.

captain yesterday wrote:


the hilarity of the Halfling is just a bonus:-) however if you think that picture is bad, pick up a random later release of 2nd edition for some truly atrocious artwork (and rules;)

Agreed about the 2E art. The picture of the manticore in the 2E MM is a perfect example of it. The Goblin even more so imo.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

and some healthy competition never hurts, keeps you fresh and alert, hopefully pathfinder will embrace that and not repeat the editing debacle that is the ACG (so i've heard, i'm not getting it, dont need another ten classes to bog down PC creation)


Adjule wrote:
The closest thing to a 4th edition clone is 13th Age, apparently. Looked through the book and it did feel 4th Edition-y. Though it wasn't an exact copy or such like Pathfinder is to 3rd edition. It looks like there would be so much more conversion of 4th to 13th age, compared to 3rd edition to Pathfinder.

13th Age, aside from being a fantastic game on its own, picks up the narrative slant of 4E and carries it forward. Anyone feeling abandoned by 4E should check it out.

Silver Crusade

I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me. Also, clerics got eviscerated. No thanks. I honestly prefer 4th ed to 5th ed. At least 4th ed was a good tactical combat game. 5th ed feels like a time warp to 1988, and I've already burned out on 2nd ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me. Also, clerics got eviscerated. No thanks. I honestly prefer 4th ed to 5th ed. At least 4th ed was a good tactical combat game. 5th ed feels like a time warp to 1988, and I've already burned out on 2nd ed.

I respectfully suggest that you may not remember 2nd edition all that well. ;-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

also with how technology has advanced, its odd they dont have PDFs available, I know plenty of people that keep their entire gaming experience on their tablets. it seems weird a company as big as Hasbro didnt see that coming...

Editor, Jon Brazer Enterprises

I'm a huge fan of 13th Age, and I incorporated many of its conventions into my 4E games toward the end of that edition run. I also wrote an adventure for the system, which you can check out here! 13th Age really is everything I liked about 4E with a lot of the extraneous chaff chipped away.

Silver Crusade

bugleyman wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me. Also, clerics got eviscerated. No thanks. I honestly prefer 4th ed to 5th ed. At least 4th ed was a good tactical combat game. 5th ed feels like a time warp to 1988, and I've already burned out on 2nd ed.
I respectfully suggest that you may not remember 2nd edition all that well. ;-)

Nah, I remember it fine. But you have to realize my favorite system of all is HERO system, so I like a very mathematical system. 2nd and 5th have about the same level of non-mechanics and DM fiat going for them. 5th is obviously more well defined, but more like 2nd than a 3.X system.


David Bowles wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me. Also, clerics got eviscerated. No thanks. I honestly prefer 4th ed to 5th ed. At least 4th ed was a good tactical combat game. 5th ed feels like a time warp to 1988, and I've already burned out on 2nd ed.
I respectfully suggest that you may not remember 2nd edition all that well. ;-)
Nah, I remember it fine. But you have to realize my favorite system of all is HERO system, so I like a very mathematical system. 2nd and 5th have about the same level of non-mechanics and DM fiat going for them. 5th is obviously more well defined, but more like 2nd than a 3.X system.

I loved Hero, then I had kids. :P

I just meant that, simplicity aside, 5E is a lot more consistent that 2E was. I definitely get that they share a lot in spirit.


David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me.

I agree with this. I've only played a few pick up games (and all at level 1 & 2, so keep that in mind), but there really didn't seem like much difference between someone invested in a particular area and someone who wasn't.

I can appreciate a simplified system, and I can appreciate the flexibility it gives DM's to improvise and keep things moving narratively, but I want my character build choices and conceptual areas-of-focus to make the character mechanically stand out.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, the preponderance of modifiers in 3.x/PFRPG turns everything into tedium, and actual combat into a g%$#@*n nightmare.


Yep. i get that—and to a certain extent agree—I just don't know that I'm sold on 5e's solution, for the stated reason.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
To me, the preponderance of modifiers in 3.x/PFRPG turns everything into tedium...

Well, we at least agree on that point. :)

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
To me, the preponderance of modifiers in 3.x/PFRPG turns everything into tedium, and actual combat into a g&+~!!n nightmare.

But without them, it's hard to have a dynamic system. MMORPGs have the huge benefit of being on a computer. Something like WoW can have a simple interface that has fantastically complicated math behind it.

Silver Crusade

Eben TheQuiet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me.

I agree with this. I've only played a few pick up games (and all at level 1 & 2, so keep that in mind), but there really didn't seem like much difference between someone invested in a particular area and someone who wasn't.

I can appreciate a simplified system, and I can appreciate the flexibility it gives DM's to improvise and keep things moving narratively, but I want my character build choices and conceptual areas-of-focus to make the character mechanically stand out.

I improvise just fine in Pathfinder. But I've been templating since 2000. The first 3.0 game I ran had templated NPCs in it.

One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

I'm sorry it doesn't default to your expectation of "Casters rule, martialz drool!"

Happily for you, that still seems to be one of the.cornerstones of Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me.

I agree with this. I've only played a few pick up games (and all at level 1 & 2, so keep that in mind), but there really didn't seem like much difference between someone invested in a particular area and someone who wasn't.

I can appreciate a simplified system, and I can appreciate the flexibility it gives DM's to improvise and keep things moving narratively, but I want my character build choices and conceptual areas-of-focus to make the character mechanically stand out.

I improvise just fine in Pathfinder. But I've been templating since 2000. The first 3.0 game I ran had templated NPCs in it.

One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

Wait, what?!

Dude, have you seen the cantrips in this edition? Unlimited Xd6-Xd12/day at range with several feats and class features that allow you to add your casting stat to it?

I'm playing a Cleric with the War domain right now who currently has more attacks than our fighter and does more damage per swing. (Though that'll change around 5th level, as it should.) Plus spells get stupid powerful in the higher levels.

The only real difference I can see is it lets martial characters actually do their schtick instead of forcing everyone go into archery so they can get their full attack routine reliably.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
Quote:


One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

I'm sorry it doesn't default to your expectation of "Casters rule, martialz drool!"

Happily for you, that still seems to be one of the.cornerstones of Pathfinder.

I don't think this is true at all. Too many NPCs have too many HPs and SR and crazy saves.

Silver Crusade

EntrerisShadow wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I dislike the lack of dynamic range of 5th edition greatly. Getting rid of all the "+1's" makes 5th ed combat pretty boring to me.

I agree with this. I've only played a few pick up games (and all at level 1 & 2, so keep that in mind), but there really didn't seem like much difference between someone invested in a particular area and someone who wasn't.

I can appreciate a simplified system, and I can appreciate the flexibility it gives DM's to improvise and keep things moving narratively, but I want my character build choices and conceptual areas-of-focus to make the character mechanically stand out.

I improvise just fine in Pathfinder. But I've been templating since 2000. The first 3.0 game I ran had templated NPCs in it.

One more point about 5th: I hate it that martials can take a move and then get all thier attacks. 5th, from what I have seen, is balanced very heavily in favor of martials. I would, for example, never play a cleric in 5th. I'd make someone else do that job.

Wait, what?!

Dude, have you seen the cantrips in this edition? Unlimited Xd6-Xd12/day at range with several feats and class features that allow you to add your casting stat to it?

I'm playing a Cleric with the War domain right now who currently has more attacks than our fighter and does more damage per swing. (Though that'll change around 5th level, as it should.) Plus spells get stupid powerful in the higher levels.

The only real difference I can see is it lets martial characters actually do their schtick instead of forcing everyone go into archery so they can get their full attack routine reliably.

I have seen them. And casters are eviscerated in 5th. No channel. No summons.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My grognard senses tingle. I actually like what I've seen of 5e so far precisely because it feels like a refinement on old 2e.

Less opportunity for theory-crafting (at least thus far), things that feel different out of the gate, classes that feel like classes again instead of piles of features.

It honestly feels like 2e refined, which I like, given that 2e had stronger ties back to 1e.

I see it as a chance for old school adventuring to return a bit, maybe WoTC can reprint its old 1e and 2e adventures, reawaken sleeping campaign settings like Spelljammer or Birthright, or maybe issue a 2e, 3e and 4e to 5e conversion guide.

Also clerics still have capabilities, the same ones they had for ages before 3e came along. Its back to being Turn Undead like it was in 1e and 2e, but with the added benefit of having specialized channels based on what kind of deity you worship. This is a positive thing. I actually kind of miss the days when your worshipped deity didn't just adjust alignment, but also what spells you had available (spheres of influence used to be restrictive as opposed to permissive).

I'm not a fan of the any alignment paladin, but thats been an issue I've had since 4e and that cow's out of the barn now. I like that they added the oath system though, so the paladin doesn't get to just gallivant around while claiming holy mandate.

I also didn't notice if 5e edition carried on 4e's weird-ass belief you shouldn't get money for stuff you sold that wasn't 'treasure,' but I think the days of orc-boot selling might be back! Woo hoo. :)

EDIT: As a note. If you like optimizing and all that, more power to you. I just prefer Playing to be more important to the game then building.

I like trends where the Magic: The Gathering aspect brought into DnD with 3e (with its idea of killer combos, feats and ever increasing bonuses) slips away.


I'm glad to see that tieflings are back to their bonus charisma like in 2e. YE!

This may have been the case in 4th ed, which I skipped. Did tiefling had a bonus or a penalty to CHA in 4th ed?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


I'm sorry it doesn't default to your expectation of "Casters rule, martialz drool!"

Happily for you, that still seems to be one of the.cornerstones of Pathfinder.

Out of all the rules to complain about 5E. That martials can actually move and still get all their attacks. casters are still powerful. They are not the do all that they are in Pathfinder. One of the main complaints about PF is that it did almost nothing to fix the fighter. 5E does and it's a flaw. Well different tastes and all that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought 5E's change to Knock was inspired.


Laurefindel wrote:

I'm glad to see that tieflings are back to their bonus charisma like in 2e. YE!

This may have been the case in 4th ed, which I skipped. Did tiefling had a bonus or a penalty to CHA in 4th ed?

Tieflings got +2 Charisma, +2 to Constitution or Intelligence. Made the Race pretty darn good at nearly any power source sans Primal.


memorax wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


I'm sorry it doesn't default to your expectation of "Casters rule, martialz drool!"

Happily for you, that still seems to be one of the.cornerstones of Pathfinder.

Out of all the rules to complain about 5E. That martials can actually move and still get all their attacks. casters are still powerful. They are not the do all that they are in Pathfinder. One of the main complaints about PF is that it did almost nothing to fix the fighter. 5E does and it's a flaw. Well different tastes and all that.

Gotta agree here. Since playing 5e I've gone back and made significant changes to my v3.5/PF games that I run. No more "Full-Attack Action" for characters. If they have 2, 3, or 4 attacks they get them on a move (however a move more than 5' still provokes Opportunity Attacks). Some other ideas have filtered in too like Advantage/Disadvantge and the entire Traits/Flaws/Bonds have gone into both 3.5/PF and 4E games.

As for At-Will cantrips in 5E, I suspect that they're quickly out-classed by 5th level and beyond as Fighters get more attacks that they add their stat-modifier to. Not to mention Action Surge which they get to make all their attacks again. Except for the sever lack of skills for the Fighter and the bad save (who requires Strength saving throws?!) it's probably one of the most powerful classes (damage wise) in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Except for the severe lack of skills for the Fighter and the bad save (who requires Strength saving throws?!) it's probably one of the most powerful classes (damage wise) in the game.

Not many things do, but I think an argument for things like Web could be made...especially if the initial Dexterity save failed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

i was disappointed they didn't do what Paizo did and make one Iconic figure for each class with background and everything, they really needed to reload their roster, rather then have it be Drizzt, Elminster and a bunch of interchangeable people with no depth

of course i've only looked it over a couple times so if they did do that then i retract my remark:)

still it needs more identity

Silver Crusade

Letting combatants take a full move and take all their attacks has a lot of unforeseen consequences. Something like a dragon just got nearly impossible to deal with. Fly 80 feet, take seven attacks with power attack, good night.

Clearly people should play what they enjoy, but if my only option for tabletop gaming were 5th ed, I'd just go play more Starcraft. That game holds zero interest for me. They tried to be everything to everyone and came up with something I feel inferior to even 4th ed. But as I said, I've been there, done that with 2nd ed, and by extension, 2nd ed redux. I have no interest in playing 2nd ed again.

201 to 250 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