5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

351 to 400 of 1,086 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Arnwyn wrote:


Well, to be fair, it was a human fort that the ogres took over.

So... the idea was fine.

Not exactly. It is a human Fort sized Fort with no modifications to it. The Ogres as written made modifications to the area. No removal or breaking of walls or any changes. I'm not saying they had alter the entire Fort. Picture yourself buying a house that sized for dwarfs. Then tell me after a week of not a few days that one is not going to modify it.


Bluenose wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I actually think they've boosted the power level of all classes early on, relative to previous editions. We haven't played passed fifth level, so I don't really know beyond that - my impression is that they've reduced the power of high level casters.
My suspicion is that casters have not been toned down as much as it looks like, while non-casters have been kept to "realistic" abilities at higher levels and will fall well behind regardless of how they keep up at lower levels.

It seems to me that the curtailing of high level spell slots and the concentration restriction will be a significant reduction in caster power. I'll be interested to see how it pans out if we get that far.

The capping of physical exploits at "realistic" levels is something I find annoying in any RPG (though I dont really like 'superhero' either). However, I find that more a trait of the DM than the ruleset - you can usually tweak the DCs (or equivalent mechanic) to the power level you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
goldomark wrote:
Adjule wrote:
What is the CR of Tiamat?
30. I'm sure damage wise it is a 30 CR, but it just looks boring. Bite/breath weapon/ignore fail saves, repeat.

She doesn't look more boring than anything Paizo has put out for the final encounter for an AP or adventure module.


Adjule wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Adjule wrote:
What is the CR of Tiamat?
30. I'm sure damage wise it is a 30 CR, but it just looks boring. Bite/breath weapon/ignore fail saves, repeat.
She doesn't look more boring than anything Paizo has put out for the final encounter for an AP or adventure module.

I just find that the Clockwork Reliquary, Deskari or Pazuzu (B4) have feats, spells, mythic power, items and abilities that give them more options than bite damage+energy damage in combat. And out of combat. Maybe that is just me, but bite+energy damage is not inspiring.

I also think they have more flavor. Maybe because Tiamat is a bit worn out for me and they are new (except for Pazuzu). It is a shame, I liked her.


David Bowles wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Yes, but I see it even more potent in the hands of a GM like myself. If I were GMing 5th ed, I can guarantee that caster death rates would be sky high, as opposing NPCs would exploit this mechanic constantly. Because they are not dumb.

Unless you're deliberately trying to screw over the players (and if you are, then the rules don't matter), the monster's ability to use mobility is balanced by the PCs enhanced mobility. A wizard, for example, can move into position, cast their spell, and retreat behind cover. Clerics can do that too, or they can choose to move and attack with weapons - many of the domains make for pretty good front line combatants. Attackers are more mobile, but so are blockers; they can aggressively move to intercept incoming enemies without losing their ability to deal with them. Tactical thinking and creative use of the environment are rewarded significantly more than they are in 3.PF, which makes for more variety and more cinematic action in fights. As a DM, my reaction to the change is that it makes it a lot easier to have people running around, jumping off of things, swinging from chandeliers, and generally acting more like they're in an action movie than a board game. There's no way I can count that as a bad thing.

I don't think that it will end up being as balanced as you think. Unless the monsters in 5th don't scale up well. Which might be the case. And I like board games more than action movies.

As I said before, there are no right or wrong preferences.

With regard to balance, however, I haven't seen any problems or heard about anyone having problems in play with casters being unable to survive or not being fun to play.


JoeJ wrote:
With regard to balance, however, I haven't seen any problems or heard about anyone having problems in play with casters being unable to survive or not being fun to play.

You didn't hear about most of the balance issues for 3E or 4E until well after release either. I'm not prepared to say that casters are completely bad, but I'm not ready to say that casters are where they need to be for the system be proclaimed a great success on the magic front either.


Most dnd5 monsters have lots of flavour. that's where the entry for them in the MM is mostly non stat-block.
The R0T reads well, time will tell how it plays, and that is the key compared to endless theorycraft , that hold no interest for me
if they stick to 1-2 book adventures plus a tied in players book, then that will do for me

Combatwise dnd5 is certainly the mobile battles of WW2 compared to the Napoleonic stand in lines and don't move much of PF

Silver Crusade

JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Yes, but I see it even more potent in the hands of a GM like myself. If I were GMing 5th ed, I can guarantee that caster death rates would be sky high, as opposing NPCs would exploit this mechanic constantly. Because they are not dumb.

Unless you're deliberately trying to screw over the players (and if you are, then the rules don't matter), the monster's ability to use mobility is balanced by the PCs enhanced mobility. A wizard, for example, can move into position, cast their spell, and retreat behind cover. Clerics can do that too, or they can choose to move and attack with weapons - many of the domains make for pretty good front line combatants. Attackers are more mobile, but so are blockers; they can aggressively move to intercept incoming enemies without losing their ability to deal with them. Tactical thinking and creative use of the environment are rewarded significantly more than they are in 3.PF, which makes for more variety and more cinematic action in fights. As a DM, my reaction to the change is that it makes it a lot easier to have people running around, jumping off of things, swinging from chandeliers, and generally acting more like they're in an action movie than a board game. There's no way I can count that as a bad thing.

I don't think that it will end up being as balanced as you think. Unless the monsters in 5th don't scale up well. Which might be the case. And I like board games more than action movies.

As I said before, there are no right or wrong preferences.

With regard to balance, however, I haven't seen any problems or heard about anyone having problems in play with casters being unable to survive or not being fun to play.

How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not screwing anyone, because its right there in black and white. I would warn people playing casters ahead of time of this feature and how it affects them in battle.

Silver Crusade

thenovalord wrote:

Most dnd5 monsters have lots of flavour. that's where the entry for them in the MM is mostly non stat-block.

The R0T reads well, time will tell how it plays, and that is the key compared to endless theorycraft , that hold no interest for me
if they stick to 1-2 book adventures plus a tied in players book, then that will do for me

Combatwise dnd5 is certainly the mobile battles of WW2 compared to the Napoleonic stand in lines and don't move much of PF

Not moving in PF will get you massacred at a table with a good GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Yes, but I see it even more potent in the hands of a GM like myself. If I were GMing 5th ed, I can guarantee that caster death rates would be sky high, as opposing NPCs would exploit this mechanic constantly. Because they are not dumb.

Unless you're deliberately trying to screw over the players (and if you are, then the rules don't matter), the monster's ability to use mobility is balanced by the PCs enhanced mobility. A wizard, for example, can move into position, cast their spell, and retreat behind cover. Clerics can do that too, or they can choose to move and attack with weapons - many of the domains make for pretty good front line combatants. Attackers are more mobile, but so are blockers; they can aggressively move to intercept incoming enemies without losing their ability to deal with them. Tactical thinking and creative use of the environment are rewarded significantly more than they are in 3.PF, which makes for more variety and more cinematic action in fights. As a DM, my reaction to the change is that it makes it a lot easier to have people running around, jumping off of things, swinging from chandeliers, and generally acting more like they're in an action movie than a board game. There's no way I can count that as a bad thing.

I don't think that it will end up being as balanced as you think. Unless the monsters in 5th don't scale up well. Which might be the case. And I like board games more than action movies.

As I said before, there are no right or wrong preferences.

With regard to balance, however, I haven't seen any problems or heard about anyone having problems in play with casters being unable to survive or not being fun to play.

How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not screwing anyone, because its right there in black and white. I would warn people playing casters ahead of time of this feature and how it affects them in battle.

If you're the DM, you can deliberately screw your players in 5e just like you can in any other RPG. But if you're just using monsters of the appropriate CR and playing them using only their intelligence and in-world knowledge instead of metagaming them, the game is not any more hazardous for casters than it is for anyone else. If moving and attacking had the effect you claim it does, we would be seeing that in games all the time. There are an awful lot of us playing this game, and we're not seeing this happen. If anything, balance issues go in the opposite direction; casters are still slightly OP (especially Circle of the Moon druids), although not nearly as badly as in 3.PF.

That's not to say that 5e is perfect; no game is. And you have every right to prefer something else. But the problem you're seeing in theory does not exist in play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters.

If a GM wants to hose casters, they can do so in any system, whether with true-striking invisible archers readying to disrupt casting, monsters with spell resistance or magic immunity, or simply foes that target one character to the exclusion of all others.

I really don't think some altered mobility rules will change that, or be a bigger 'weapon' in the hands of a DM than the options available in many other editions.

Will there be situations where it makes things more of a problem for a caster? Sure. In other situations the new movement rules will be an advantage for them - such as the ability to duck around a corner, cast a spell, and duck back out of sight in one turn.

It sounds like you run a very 'competitive' style of play, where the DM is not going to hold back against the players, and vice versa. And that is a perfectly legitimate approach to the game. But if the players have found ways to survive in dangerous situations in past editions of the game, why do you think they won't be able to do so in this one?

If the party finds that you prefer to run mobile assassin-type foes against them, who hone in on the weakest party member and take them out... why wouldn't they start building parties with ways to hinder enemy mobility? Which can take any number of forms, mind you - it could involve a fighter with the guardian-style features and feats to stop enemies from moving past him. But it could just as easily come from the casters themselves investing in spells that slow movement, create difficult terrain, or push the enemy around. Or monks who grapple and knock prone anyone that gets near them. Or maybe you just build your caster's for durability and melee combat. Or take lots of teleportation and bonus movement spells.

I can see being concerned about what effect the new movement rules will have on the game. But you seem to have arrived at a very absolute certainty about exactly how it will work, without - as far as I can tell - any significant experience with the system.

I think that is how a lot of the misinformation and confusion about new editions (and new game systems in general) gets started - someone comes to a conclusion that may or may not be supported by the rules, but is put forward with enough confidence that others take it as fact and carry it on.

In this case, I could understand wanting to see the system in action and see what effect it has on casters at different levels in their careers. But this guarantee that it is an automatic death sentence is just way, way out there, and seems particularly at odds with many very real experiences with the actual game itself.


JoeJ wrote:
If anything, balance issues go in the opposite direction; casters are still slightly OP (especially Circle of the Moon druids), although not nearly as badly as in 3.PF.

I think the biggest indication of decent balance in the game, that I've seen thus far, is simply the number of competing opinions out there. I've seen folks claim that casters are now useless, and others who insist they are still the top-tier of the game. I've seen complaints about how bard's get too versatile a spell selection, while the bard in my party is upset he doesn't know as many spells as a wizard. I've seen rangers dismissed as the weakest class in the game, while others describe how a ranger in their group regularly outdamages the rest of the party combined. I remain frustrated over how underwhelming the elemental monk is - I've also talked to some folks for whom it is the reason they are trying out the game.

Every class seems to have something unique going for it, and every class seems to have some ways in which it doesn't measure up to other classes. We'll see if that continues to remain true throughout the edition, sure. But for now, it seems a promising sign to me.

Silver Crusade

I don't need a huge amount of experience to understand the following. The DPR of a standard martial moving 30" goes from maybe 20ish to potentially triple digits. Assuming the game scales that high. But I seem to remember fighters getting 4 swings when I looked at it. That's a lot of pounding after a full move. I don't seem to recall any super caster hp buff in this game either. This ability to full attack after moving is, in many ways, far superior to pounce because you don't need straight line and rough terrain doesn't stop you. It's incredibly, incredibly powerful. And casters got nothing in return except the nerf bat.

That also does not take into account multiple attack monsters that can move their potentially more than 30" and just wail away. I can't possibly see how this is balanced for casters. Especially when all casters lost their extra melee swings in the process. In fact, I can't see how this is balanced at all at higher levels. There is the potential to fight multiple large monsters with high STR scores with multiple attacks they get every round because no one can get away from them, and they get all their attacks whether they move or not.

". In other situations the new movement rules will be an advantage for them - such as the ability to duck around a corner, cast a spell, and duck back out of sight in one turn."

That's not that useful when the martials can just come around the corner and take all their attacks.

"But this guarantee that it is an automatic death sentence is just way, way out there, and seems particularly at odds with many very real experiences with the actual game itself."

Obviously, at low level, this effect is invisible as no one has the multiple swings to use with the movement.

"If a GM wants to hose casters, they can do so in any system, whether with true-striking invisible archers readying to disrupt casting, monsters with spell resistance or magic immunity, or simply foes that target one character to the exclusion of all others."

In 5th ed, it seems all I have to do is move a martial adjacent to one. That's a lot less effort than your examples.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not...

Unrelated to the caster thing, but I have to say that it's interesting that in such a stripped down system, 5E demands players be more tactically astute than the rules-heavy 3.PF model.

The Monster Manual pretty much hands out advantage to GM's like candy. Even the staple of low-level counters - 1/4 CR wolves - become deadly if you throw more than one of them in there. (Automatic advantage when in a pack, and DC 13 trip attempts on every attack.)

A Level 1 Fighter in 3.PF could probably kill a dozen rats without breaking a sweat. I almost killed our party fighter with 4 of them, due to the new finesse attack/damage rules.

In PF I always had to throw harder CR's at my players to make the encounters challenging. In 5E I'm wondering what drunk hobo thought "1/8" was an appropriate challenge rating for something that can knock out your fighter in two hits.

Silver Crusade

I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.

Silver Crusade

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
If anything, balance issues go in the opposite direction; casters are still slightly OP (especially Circle of the Moon druids), although not nearly as badly as in 3.PF.

I think the biggest indication of decent balance in the game, that I've seen thus far, is simply the number of competing opinions out there. I've seen folks claim that casters are now useless, and others who insist they are still the top-tier of the game. I've seen complaints about how bard's get too versatile a spell selection, while the bard in my party is upset he doesn't know as many spells as a wizard. I've seen rangers dismissed as the weakest class in the game, while others describe how a ranger in their group regularly outdamages the rest of the party combined. I remain frustrated over how underwhelming the elemental monk is - I've also talked to some folks for whom it is the reason they are trying out the game.

Every class seems to have something unique going for it, and every class seems to have some ways in which it doesn't measure up to other classes. We'll see if that continues to remain true throughout the edition, sure. But for now, it seems a promising sign to me.

People still make erroneous claims in PF, that does not make it balanced.


David Bowles wrote:
I don't need a huge amount of experience to understand the following. The DPR of a standard martial moving 30" goes from maybe 20ish to potentially triple digits. Assuming the game scales that high. But I seem to remember fighters getting 4 swings when I looked at it. That's a lot of pounding after a full move. I don't seem to recall any super caster hp buff in this game either. This ability to full attack after moving is, in many ways, far superior to pounce because you don't need straight line and rough terrain doesn't stop you. It's incredibly, incredibly powerful. And casters got nothing in return except the nerf bat.

Full attacking or pouncing characters/enemies in 3.5 / PF aren't scary because they take multiple attacks. It typically was due to things like taking multiple attacks while cranking up the damage with power attack, having attack bonuses that rarely missed, having spells or other buffs to do more damage, etc.

5E has moved quite far from the paradigm where your attacks hit almost all of the time, or where there are countless ways to crank your damage through the roof. Damage dealers can certainly still be effective and consistent, but the numbers are much more balanced a whole. They are also aimed at combats that are often faster paced but longer in duration (in terms of in-character rounds, not necessarily out-of-character minutes).

The monsters and PCs aren't written with the expectation that everything will be resolved in the first two rounds of combats, either through save or die spells, or through typically-lethal full-round attacks.

You know what happens when a monster with 8 attacks runs around the party and charges the wizard? The wizard casts Shield and most of the monster's attacks miss.

Now, Shield is a significant resource for the wizard, even as he gets into the high levels. But he has that spell as an option, and it does a very good job of preventing him from getting 'auto-murdered' by a DM out for his blood.

David Bowles wrote:
That also does not take into account multiple attack monsters that can move their potentially more than 30" and just wail away. I can't possibly see how this is balanced for casters. Especially when all casters lost their extra melee swings in the process. In fact, I can't see how this is balanced at all at higher levels. There is the potential to fight multiple large monsters with high STR scores with multiple attacks they get every round because no one can get away from them, and they get all their attacks whether they move or not.

I would take a closer look at the actual stats of monsters and PCs in the game, as well as the expected balance of typical encounters. I'd also take a closer look at the capabilities of high level PCs for getting away from monsters or disabling enemies when needed. Or just surviving a beating while finishing off the enemies themselves. Honestly, the fact that casters don't provoke for casting in 5E seems like they will be much better off when cornered by something scary. As opposed to 3.5 or PF where, yes, a squishy caster getting cornered by a huge monster is usually a very bad place to be.

But it really feels like you are pointing at one change in the rules while ignoring a lot of the other adjustments and balances. In the big picture, I just don't see any signs of your fears coming to pass. Not in the rules themselves, and not at the table while playing the game.


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

Not moving in PF will get you massacred at a table with a good GM.

I utterly disagree with you. In all my vast hours of play I utterly disagree with you. If you don't have to move more than 5ft in PF you can unleash your full superhero powers......move 10ft, not so much

Plus the above sounds like a shocking GM; 30 years behind the curve


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl said wrote:
But it really feels like you are pointing at one change in the rules while ignoring a lot of the other adjustments and balances. In the big picture, I just don't see any signs of your fears coming to pass. Not in the rules themselves, and not at the table while playing the game.

That's usually what people do when they look at something new that is in competition with their chosen thing. They latch onto one aspect and try to trash the new thing based on it. It has been done many times in other threads in this section, as well as multiple times in this thread itself. You see it other places as well. And they usually don't give the new thing a real try.

I will admit to doing this myself. I wrote off the playtest due to something, and never gave it a chance. When they released the Basic pdf, I decided to give it another look, and liked what I saw. Played it, and greatly enjoyed it.

A DM can screw over the players in ANY edition of D&D (this includes Pathfinder). They can screw over casters by making them fight creatures immune or greatly resistant the spells. They can screw over martials by making everything fly or are immune or resistant to their damage. It's not something so magicaly new in 5th edition.

This is why it is a cooperative game. The caster isn't in a bubble by himself. He has 3+ others in there with him to distract anything trying to remove his face. And if the DM makes the encounters to where no matter what, the caster will be destroyed, then he is a rather dick DM and not someone worth playing with.

Do people really play this as a solo comeptitive game? Coming onto these forums reminds me of what I see in MMORPGs. "If I can't do something solo then it's a steaming pile of s$$#." RPGs are best when they are played cooperatively, not competitively. At least, D&D is.

Silver Crusade

thenovalord wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

Not moving in PF will get you massacred at a table with a good GM.

I utterly disagree with you. In all my vast hours of play I utterly disagree with you. If you don't have to move more than 5ft in PF you can unleash your full superhero powers......move 10ft, not so much

Plus the above sounds like a shocking GM; 30 years behind the curve

Okay, then. Please stay in fireball formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent. If your GM has been letting you get away with that, that's just sad.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
Okay, then. Please stay in fireball formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent. If your GM has been letting you get away with that, that's just sad.

Resist Energy and archers make those two things irrelevant.

Grand Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.

True. Just pointing out the difference, for me at least, was that in 3.PF it seemed like it was almost always a gross underestimation, as opposed to a gross overestimation like it is in 5E. If something was "CR 1" when we started a game, I usually needed 2-3 of them to provide an appropriate challenge with slight exception. (Ghouls, for instance - although even those were a joke if you had a mostly-to-all elf party.)

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Okay, then. Please stay in fireball formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent. If your GM has been letting you get away with that, that's just sad.
Resist Energy and archers make those two things irrelevant.

Well, that's one opinion. Very PFS specific. In homebrew, my casters know to change up their energy type, as well as to pack wind wall and fickle winds tech.

Silver Crusade

EntrerisShadow wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.
True. Just pointing out the difference, for me at least, was that in 3.PF it seemed like it was almost always a gross underestimation, as opposed to a gross overestimation like it is in 5E. If something was "CR 1" when we started a game, I usually needed 2-3 of them to provide an appropriate challenge with slight exception. (Ghouls, for instance - although even those were a joke if you had a mostly-to-all elf party.)

Until the ghasts get mixed in. Or the ghouls are templated with barbarian. Templating is the great equalizer.


Archery Uber Alles in PF......why does it need its own splatbook

party will soon be 5th lvl in one of my DND games...
.look forward to the move 10ft attack, move 10ft swing again, move 10ft possibly swing again or some other minor action.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
Well, that's one opinion. Very PFS specific.

And your homebrew is specific to your homebrew.


David Bowles wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Okay, then. Please stay in fireball formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent. If your GM has been letting you get away with that, that's just sad.
Resist Energy and archers make those two things irrelevant.
Well, that's one opinion. Very PFS specific. In homebrew, my casters know to change up their energy type, as well as to pack wind wall and fickle winds tech.

yep. the other 94.37% encounters get shot to pieces

Silver Crusade

I can assure you that far less than 94% of the encounters in my games are trivialized by archers. Because in a non-episodic setting with consistent NPCs, everyone knows how dangerous archers are.

I've seen several fights go south because of poor movement. And that's just in PFS.

Grand Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.
True. Just pointing out the difference, for me at least, was that in 3.PF it seemed like it was almost always a gross underestimation, as opposed to a gross overestimation like it is in 5E. If something was "CR 1" when we started a game, I usually needed 2-3 of them to provide an appropriate challenge with slight exception. (Ghouls, for instance - although even those were a joke if you had a mostly-to-all elf party.)
Until the ghasts get mixed in. Or the ghouls are templated with barbarian. Templating is the great equalizer.

You're still increasing the CR in those instances. Point is CR 1 is still a joke for an actual Lv 1 party.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Well, that's one opinion. Very PFS specific.
And your homebrew is specific to your homebrew.

Do you think it's unrealistic for other homebrew GMs to be addressing issues like that in their games? PFS authors have a bad habit of writing encounters that get destroyed by the same builds over and over and over.

Silver Crusade

EntrerisShadow wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.
True. Just pointing out the difference, for me at least, was that in 3.PF it seemed like it was almost always a gross underestimation, as opposed to a gross overestimation like it is in 5E. If something was "CR 1" when we started a game, I usually needed 2-3 of them to provide an appropriate challenge with slight exception. (Ghouls, for instance - although even those were a joke if you had a mostly-to-all elf party.)
Until the ghasts get mixed in. Or the ghouls are templated with barbarian. Templating is the great equalizer.
You're still increasing the CR in those instances. Point is CR 1 is still a joke for an actual Lv 1 party.

I completely agree. I largely ignore the CR system in my homebrews. Only PFS authors are shackled by them. Sounds like the CR system should be ignored in 5th as well. Some things never change.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Well, that's one opinion. Very PFS specific.
And your homebrew is specific to your homebrew.
Do you think it's unrealistic for other homebrew GMs to be addressing issues like that in their games?

No. But you can't comment on the specificity of my statement and then make one even more specific without being returned in kind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not screwing anyone, because its right there in black and white. I would warn people playing casters ahead of time of this feature and how it affects them in battle.

Why would you have the monsters pursue the casters if you think they're weaker opponents than the Martial characters? That doesn't seem tactically sensible to me.

Silver Crusade

Again, it's not my fault that PFS authors are kinda lame and allow archers and resist energy to shut down their scenarios. There's no reason it has to be like that.

So even without addressing PFS, resist energy and archery do not necessarily shut down AE attacks and flying opponents.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not screwing anyone, because its right there in black and white. I would warn people playing casters ahead of time of this feature and how it affects them in battle.
Why would you have the monsters pursue the casters if you think they're weaker opponents than the Martial characters? That doesn't seem tactically sensible to me.

Because eliminating action economy is still powerful, even if casters are inferior. They still count. Obviously, only tactically-minded NPCs would think about this. You pick off the weak ones first, not attack strength. It's like how my NPCs stop attacking the AC 40 tower shield specialist as soon as they figure out he's AC 40.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:

Again, it's not my fault that PFS authors are kinda lame and allow archers and resist energy to shut down their scenarios. There's no reason it has to be like that.

So even without addressing PFS, resist energy and archery do not necessarily shut down AE attacks and flying opponents.

So you've changed your statement from "Please stay in fireball formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent." to "Please stay in energy attack formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent with wind wall/fickle winds."

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

Again, it's not my fault that PFS authors are kinda lame and allow archers and resist energy to shut down their scenarios. There's no reason it has to be like that.

So even without addressing PFS, resist energy and archery do not necessarily shut down AE attacks and flying opponents.

So you've changed your statement from "Please stay in fireball formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent." to "Please stay in energy attack formation for me. Or don't close with a flying opponent with wind wall/fickle winds."

Sure. If that's how you want to take it. I changed my statement. I retract the old one. Movement still matters in PF. Not always, but it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not screwing anyone, because its right there in black and white. I would warn people playing casters ahead of time of this feature and how it affects them in battle.
Why would you have the monsters pursue the casters if you think they're weaker opponents than the Martial characters? That doesn't seem tactically sensible to me.
Because eliminating action economy is still powerful, even if casters are inferior. They still count.

It just seems to me that, if your argument is sound, choosing to run around eliminating the weak PCs would be less "tactical" than focussing on the dangerous foes.

I'm more curious about strategy than anything else. Our tactics are generally "kill the dangerous guys as quickly as possible". That (broadly) holds for the monsters as well.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not screwing anyone, because its right there in black and white. I would warn people playing casters ahead of time of this feature and how it affects them in battle.
Why would you have the monsters pursue the casters if you think they're weaker opponents than the Martial characters? That doesn't seem tactically sensible to me.
Because eliminating action economy is still powerful, even if casters are inferior. They still count.

It just seems to me that, if your argument is sound, choosing to run around eliminating the weak PCs would be less "tactical" than focussing on the dangerous foes.

I'm more curious about strategy than anything else. Our tactics are generally "kill the dangerous guys as quickly as possible". That (broadly) holds for the monsters as well.

It depends. If I can eliminate three inferior actors in the same time it takes me to eliminate one superior actor, it might be worthwhile to eliminate the lesser threats so I can gang up on the greater threat. It just kinda sucks for the inferior actors, doesn't it?

There is a very important ratio of danger to elimination effort to be considered. Presumably, despite being greatly weakened, there ARE spell effects that NPCs might care about, and so eliminating those easy target might be worthwhile.


David Bowles wrote:
Obviously, only tactically-minded NPCs would think about this. You pick off the weak ones first, not attack strength. It's like how my NPCs stop attacking the AC 40 tower shield specialist as soon as they figure out he's AC 40.

I see. We don't generally focus on the defence side of things as on the offense - we attack the hardest hitting foes, we don't avoid the best defended ones (though that usually amounts to the same thing anyway).

In a room full of henchmen and a BBEG, do you generally kill all the little guys first? They're generally just incidental targets for us.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Obviously, only tactically-minded NPCs would think about this. You pick off the weak ones first, not attack strength. It's like how my NPCs stop attacking the AC 40 tower shield specialist as soon as they figure out he's AC 40.

I see. We don't generally focus on the defence side of things as on the offense - we attack the hardest hitting foes, we don't avoid the best defended ones (though that usually amounts to the same thing anyway).

In a room full of henchmen and a BBEG, do you generally kill all the little guys first? They're generally just incidental targets for us.

Yes, I usually clean up the little guys to destroy their action economy. Besides, you never know what buffs the henchmen are providing. I will sometimes provide a defensive BBEG with DPR-based henchmen. Your strategy would not be the best for that set up. Obviously, a DPR BBEG and defensive minions would provide the reverse situation.

"though that usually amounts to the same thing anyway)."

In my experience, this is far from true. That's why tactical awareness is so important. Four ninjas do way more damage than four sword and board fighters. But the sword and board fighters are way better defended. I'd kill the ninjas first all day, every day.


David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Obviously, only tactically-minded NPCs would think about this. You pick off the weak ones first, not attack strength. It's like how my NPCs stop attacking the AC 40 tower shield specialist as soon as they figure out he's AC 40.

I see. We don't generally focus on the defence side of things as on the offense - we attack the hardest hitting foes, we don't avoid the best defended ones (though that usually amounts to the same thing anyway).

In a room full of henchmen and a BBEG, do you generally kill all the little guys first? They're generally just incidental targets for us.

Yes, I usually clean up the little guys to destroy their action economy. Besides, you never know what buffs the henchmen are providing. I will sometimes provide a defensive BBEG with DPR-based henchmen. Your strategy would not be the best for that set up. Obviously, a DPR BBEG and defensive minions would provide the reverse situation.

"though that usually amounts to the same thing anyway)."

In my experience, this is far from true. That's why tactical awareness is so important. Four ninjas do way more damage than four sword and board fighters. But the sword and board fighters are way better defended. I'd kill the ninjas first all day, every day.

Yeah that's what I meant - attacking the high damage dealers amounts to the same thing as avoiding the best defended ones.


David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Obviously, only tactically-minded NPCs would think about this. You pick off the weak ones first, not attack strength. It's like how my NPCs stop attacking the AC 40 tower shield specialist as soon as they figure out he's AC 40.

I see. We don't generally focus on the defence side of things as on the offense - we attack the hardest hitting foes, we don't avoid the best defended ones (though that usually amounts to the same thing anyway).

In a room full of henchmen and a BBEG, do you generally kill all the little guys first? They're generally just incidental targets for us.

Yes, I usually clean up the little guys to destroy their action economy. Besides, you never know what buffs the henchmen are providing. I will sometimes provide a defensive BBEG with DPR-based henchmen. Your strategy would not be the best for that set up.

We'd focus on the damage dealers - the henchmen, in this case.

Silver Crusade

As I said, it depends.


In the BBEG with henchmen scenario, I would have my heavy hitter(s) go for either the BBEG or any henchmen that look like they could be a big threat. I would have the caster(s) or anyone else with some nice aoe take out the henchmen/minions.


Even though David Bowles will negate or ignore this, in my 6 month long 5e campaign the movement in combat rules have only ever made combats better. I have yet to destroy anyone by moving to them and "full attacking" because the balance of hit points to damage output in 5e does not work that way.

Silver Crusade

Alan_Beven wrote:
Even though David Bowles will negate or ignore this, in my 6 month long 5e campaign the movement in combat rules have only ever made combats better. I have yet to destroy anyone by moving to them and "full attacking" because the balance of hit points to damage output in 5e does not work that way.

No, I believe you. So it sounds like no one can really do damage in this system then. Strange design.


David Bowles wrote:
I don't need a huge amount of experience to understand the following. The DPR of a standard martial moving 30" goes from maybe 20ish to potentially triple digits. Assuming the game scales that high. But I seem to remember fighters getting 4 swings when I looked at it. That's a lot of pounding after a full move. I don't seem to recall any super caster hp buff in this game either. This ability to full attack after moving is, in many ways, far superior to pounce because you don't need straight line and rough terrain doesn't stop you. It's incredibly, incredibly powerful. And casters got nothing in return except the nerf bat.

OMG! You're talking about high level games? You actually think high level spellcasters in 5e have trouble surviving? I have to say that's funny right there.

You're seriously worried about the safety of near gods who can cast ninth level spells like Foresight, Shapechange, Time Stop, True Polymorph, or Wish? Characters who have capstone abilities like guaranteed divine intervention, or unlimited wild shape? You think that just being able to move and attack makes characters with those kinds of power easy to kill? All I can say is Wow!

Silver Crusade

JoeJ wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I don't need a huge amount of experience to understand the following. The DPR of a standard martial moving 30" goes from maybe 20ish to potentially triple digits. Assuming the game scales that high. But I seem to remember fighters getting 4 swings when I looked at it. That's a lot of pounding after a full move. I don't seem to recall any super caster hp buff in this game either. This ability to full attack after moving is, in many ways, far superior to pounce because you don't need straight line and rough terrain doesn't stop you. It's incredibly, incredibly powerful. And casters got nothing in return except the nerf bat.

OMG! You're talking about high level games? You actually think high level spellcasters in 5e have trouble surviving? I have to say that's funny right there.

You're seriously worried about the safety of near gods who can cast ninth level spells like Foresight, Shapechange, Time Stop, True Polymorph, or Wish? Characters who have capstone abilities like guaranteed divine intervention, or unlimited wild shape? You think that just being able to move and attack makes characters with those kinds of power easy to kill? All I can say is Wow!

Depends on how badly they gutted those spells. If they gutted them like they gutted the rest of the class features on casters, then they are not safe at all. However, if DPR is as low as people are saying, then maybe not. Additionally, martials are getting 3+ attacks way before casters get access to those spells.

As an aside, does two weapon fighting stack with the extra attacks in 5th?

I would also assume that martials under the effects of a fly effect also can move an take all their attacks. That is also a non-trivial consideration.


PHB said wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

Those are the rules under Two-Weapon Fighting. If you take the two-weapon fighting style as a martial, you can add your ability modifier to damage with both weapons. With the Dual-Wielder feat, your weapons don't need to be light weapons.

PHB said wrote:

Bonus Action

You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.

So no, you do not get to attack with your off-hand weapon more than once per turn.

351 to 400 of 1,086 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique All Messageboards