5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique


4th Edition

401 to 450 of 1,086 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:


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

Strange Design?

First the main issue was that Fighters can attack and move. I can't see how anyone would think it's a bad thing because melee types in Pathfinder while doing damage are hampered by the action economy. 5E fixes that without nerfing other classes. Then it was Wizards were too nerfed and not as powerful. I get that your not a fan of 5E and I respect that. Yet you seem to be moving the goalposts around. Trying to find some flaw when their really is none. Or not that much. 5E is and was probably never going to be a Pathfinder clone. Nor the perfect system. I guess their is just no pleasing some in the hobby.

Silver Crusade

I only seem to be moving goal posts because no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move. Either they can do dangerous amounts of damage with those attacks or not. If not, I would find that to be strange game design. Unless of course the theme of the whole game is low damage. Which just seems tedious, because hps didn't seem that much different at level 3.


David Bowles wrote:
I only seem to be moving goal posts because no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move. Either they can do dangerous amounts of damage with those attacks or not. If not, I would find that to be strange game design. Unless of course the theme of the whole game is low damage. Which just seems tedious, because hps didn't seem that much different at level 3.

"Dangerous" is not the same thing as being able to kill their target in one round of actions.

Sure, maybe it is in pathfinder, because the game is designed for combats to end in 1-2 rounds. But 5e isn't designed that way.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move

better

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


better

Agreed and seconded. I don't think 5E is the perfect system. This by far is not a flaw at all imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I only seem to be moving goal posts because no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move. Either they can do dangerous amounts of damage with those attacks or not. If not, I would find that to be strange game design.

I think they can and that casters can defend themselves from dangerous amounts of damage. I haven't played beyond fifth level though.

t's definitely fruitful to look at it as a fresh system rather than "what's different from pathfinder (or other chosen system)" though. The classes which "lose" multiple attacks "gain" other features and it's difficult to view one feature in isolation (it's not right to consider the various class features as a change - its a different approach to encapsulating a similar concept)

It's probably also worth noting that 5E doesn't follow the "same rules for building PCs and NPCs" paradigm that pathfinder does. I mention that, since your PCs aren't going to be facing creatures built using the PC rules which probably changes the analysis - you seem to be focussing on a fighter duking it out with a magicuser in your comments above, whereas I think a more useful analysis would be how the fighter compares to the magicuser from the perspective of combat effectiveness in a fight against a common foe.

Silver Crusade

"since your PCs aren't going to be facing creatures built using the PC rules which probably changes the analysis "

Why not? It doesn't make any sense not to fight other PC classes. PCs are not unique in the world. Throwing that out is a mistake, I think. It also ties the GM's hand in terms of fighting fire with fire when it comes to PC builds.

"The classes which "lose" multiple attacks "gain" other features and it's difficult to view one feature in isolation (it's not right to consider the various class features as a change - its a different approach to encapsulating a similar concept)"

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the cleric didn't lose way more than it gained from PF.

Silver Crusade

137ben wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I only seem to be moving goal posts because no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move. Either they can do dangerous amounts of damage with those attacks or not. If not, I would find that to be strange game design. Unless of course the theme of the whole game is low damage. Which just seems tedious, because hps didn't seem that much different at level 3.

"Dangerous" is not the same thing as being able to kill their target in one round of actions.

Sure, maybe it is in pathfinder, because the game is designed for combats to end in 1-2 rounds. But 5e isn't designed that way.

And yet people are saying everything is faster in 5th.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The only class feature of the Pathfinder cleric is channel energy, domains, and spells. Honestly, giving spellcasters multiple attacks was a bad decision, in my opinion. This includes clerics and druids. That's how it was in 2nd edition, and it feels like 5th edition is trying to recapture the feel of the older editions and the older players. Which is absolutely fine.

Being honest again, 5th edition doesn't need to be like Pathfinder. It doesn't need to be a clone of Pathfinder, because that would be an extremely idiotic decision. If people want something like Pathfinder, they have Pathfinder. The people who want something different from Pathfinder have 5th edition, or they can stick with 4th edition (or switch over to 13th Age) or play something else.

I am glad 5th edition is different from Pathfinder. I am glad it is different from 4th edition. 5th edition came out at the perfect time for me. I am done with Pathfinder thanks to the type of people who play it, that I have run into. If Pathfinder is something you like, good on you. But I for one am tired of it. I may come back to it later.

Comparing 5th edition D&D to Pathfinder will only leave you disappointed. "This is too different from Pathfinder!" "Pathfinder did it this way which is better!" Stuff like this brings to mind MMORPG players and them comparing everything to World of Warcraft. If you continue to do this, you will only ever find disappointment.


David Bowles wrote:
137ben wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I only seem to be moving goal posts because no one here really seems to know how the game plays when the martials have 3-4 swings on the move. Either they can do dangerous amounts of damage with those attacks or not. If not, I would find that to be strange game design. Unless of course the theme of the whole game is low damage. Which just seems tedious, because hps didn't seem that much different at level 3.

"Dangerous" is not the same thing as being able to kill their target in one round of actions.

Sure, maybe it is in pathfinder, because the game is designed for combats to end in 1-2 rounds. But 5e isn't designed that way.
And yet people are saying everything is faster in 5th.

The combats I have been in, while the number of rounds is more, they are resolved much faster. 3 rounds of Pathfinder takes 3 times longer than 3 rounds of 5th edition combat.

My experience, of course.

Silver Crusade

At low level, the combats move almost the same. At least, from what little 5th I played.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Your opinion is wrong, and my opinion is right, because reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Your opinion is wrong, and my opinion is right, because reasons.

In case it isn't clear, I'm not trying to change David's mind, nor persuade him he's wrong. There's not a lot of point in only responding to people who share my opinions, though.


David Bowles wrote:

"since your PCs aren't going to be facing creatures built using the PC rules which probably changes the analysis "

Why not? It doesn't make any sense not to fight other PC classes. PCs are not unique in the world. Throwing that out is a mistake, I think. It also ties the GM's hand in terms of fighting fire with fire when it comes to PC builds.

Whatever ones preferences, that's not how 5E is designed to work. It doesn't have the same simulationist approach that pathfinder does in that realm.

Quote:

"The classes which "lose" multiple attacks "gain" other features and it's difficult to view one feature in isolation (it's not right to consider the various class features as a change - its a different approach to encapsulating a similar concept)"

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the cleric didn't lose way more than it gained from PF.

My point is that there wasn't a switch from pathfinder to 5E. They're two different approaches to representing similar concepts.

The risk in thinking of it as a change from the pathfinder default is you focus on one difference and interpret it as a "reduction in power" based on how that feature would work if it were imported to a pathfinder game.

I have a friend tossing up between rogue and fighter, for example. He's building spreadsheets, running simulations and doing what he enjoys with character building. The fighter gets more attacks than the rogue, yet the rogue can out damage the fighter (just) - paying for that damage in a reduced survivability. It's not immediately obvious that the two classes' DPRs are going to track so similarly. He hasn't got any interest in a cleric, so I haven't seen similar analysis - nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet there's some feature a 5E cleric gets that a pathfinder cleric doesn't which mitigates the lack of multiple attacks.

Silver Crusade

Wrath wrote:

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

"since your PCs aren't going to be facing creatures built using the PC rules which probably changes the analysis "

Why not? It doesn't make any sense not to fight other PC classes. PCs are not unique in the world. Throwing that out is a mistake, I think. It also ties the GM's hand in terms of fighting fire with fire when it comes to PC builds.

Whatever ones preferences, that's not how 5E is designed to work. It doesn't have the same simulationist approach that pathfinder does in that realm.

Quote:

"The classes which "lose" multiple attacks "gain" other features and it's difficult to view one feature in isolation (it's not right to consider the various class features as a change - its a different approach to encapsulating a similar concept)"

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the cleric didn't lose way more than it gained from PF.

My point is that there wasn't a switch from pathfinder to 5E. They're two different approaches to representing similar concepts.

The risk in thinking of it as a change from the pathfinder default is you focus on one difference and interpret it as a "reduction in power" based on how that feature would work if it were imported to a pathfinder game.

I have a friend tossing up between rogue and fighter, for example. He's building spreadsheets, running simulations and doing what he enjoys with character building. The fighter gets more attacks than the rogue, yet the rogue can out damage the fighter (just) - paying for that damage in a reduced survivability. It's not immediately obvious that the two classes' DPRs are going to track so similarly. He hasn't got any interest in a cleric, so I haven't seen similar analysis - nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet there's some feature a 5E cleric gets that a pathfinder cleric doesn't which mitigates the lack of multiple attacks.

Well said and this covers most of my 5E experience so far. It is a different game and saying "allowing movement between the various attacks is powerful and uber" is flat out wrong because in 5E it is balanced. In Pathfinder it would be broken without overhauling the rules a bit to incorporate it.

i wish people would stop hating on 5E without even trying it....just go through the introductory adventure that takes you from 1st to 5th level and you will have a great idea on how well the system performs as a whole. It is elegant, fun, and fast in combat. I also love that the game gives a bit more creative license back to the DM....it's refreshing.


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

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

Healing in combat faces the same arguments against in 5E as in Pathfinder, I think. Cure wounds is just not that great (and healing word is so weak as to be very situational).

I don't think giving up on doing damage and switching to healing in combat is going to be much of a good strategy, at least for a low level cleric. Maybe things change later, but the paucity of high level spell slots is going to make it a difficult choice to spend them on healing, I'd guess.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you play a 5e caster with the same strategies and assumptions that you use for a PF caster, then yeah, they will suck.

Maybe you should try playing them like a 5e caster. Mind-boggling concept, I know, but maybe give it a whirl, just for the hell of it?

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Wrath wrote:

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

Healing in combat faces the same arguments against in 5E as in Pathfinder, I think. Cure wounds is just not that great (and healing word is so weak as to be very situational).

I don't think giving up on doing damage and switching to healing in combat is going to be much of a good strategy, at least for a low level cleric. Maybe things change later, but the paucity of high level spell slots is going to make it a difficult choice to spend them on healing, I'd guess.

Combat healing works well in Pathfinder with channels, especially quicken channel. I'm not sure why it get such a bad rap.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:

If you play a 5e caster with the same strategies and assumptions that you use for a PF caster, then yeah, they will suck.

Maybe you should try playing them like a 5e caster. Mind-boggling concept, I know, but maybe give it a whirl, just for the hell of it?

I don't understand this statement. They still cast spells, but the spells aren't as potent. They gained move-cast-move, but enemy martials gained move-attack as many times as they can. Doesn't sound like clerics can really heal well in combat. When I played, the kinds of things I could do were almost exactly the same as Pathfinder. Just renamed, with some stuff stripped out.

I forgot cast without provoking I suppose.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

Blech. I'll watch all of my friends die painfully before I play a healbot. In 5E especially, support-style clerics have so many buffs/debuffs that if you're healing in combat, you've already failed at your job.

But in fairness, that was my philosophy in PF, too. My Cleric is either all about control or doing damage. And then, if you really need it, when we're done I'll throw down some channels.

Silver Crusade

EntrerisShadow wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

Blech. I'll watch all of my friends die painfully before I play a healbot. In 5E especially, support-style clerics have so many buffs/debuffs that if you're healing in combat, you've already failed at your job.

But in fairness, that was my philosophy in PF, too. My Cleric is either all about control or doing damage. And then, if you really need it, when we're done I'll throw down some channels.

I have seen a lot of battles lost that way. A couple of channels in combat can put wounded PCs out of the reach of NPC combatants to incapacitate. It can be particularly critical after an enemy AE attack and the appropriate resist energy is not up yet.

Unless a lot has changed in 5th, I'm not impressed cleric's ability to control or do damage. Also, a single channel can heal five or six targets saving you many actions over old school cleric heals. Which is what they seem to want you to use in 5th.

Grand Lodge

I feel like channel isn't that great. Sure, you could roll high, but typically - like sneak attack - you never roll high enough for the level you're at that it'll matter. The spontaneous cure spells are marginally better since you add your CL, but eh, in combat healing is never that spectacular.

Control is largely dependent on domains. But you've never been impressed with the cleric's ability to do damage? Really? Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and so on and so on . . .

Silver Crusade

I thought you were talking direct damage. Self buffing, to me, is a losing proposition, because by the time you buff, the fight is over. The warpriest fixes this by swift action buffs via fervor. Buffing other party members is better, because at least they can use it the same turn. +4 STR is more valuable on martials who likely have a better chance to hit anyway. Of course, with quicken channel, you can do both.

The point of channel is that say at level 7, your party eats a 9 die fireball. You channel on your turn for 4 dice. You just negated the fireball for everyone who saved and blunted it badly for those who didn't. Now individuals in your group are not as vulnerable to getting dropped by enemy martials.

Through channeling, you are tacking on dozens or even hundreds of hps of damage EXTRA that the enemy must plow through. That seems very powerful to me, and a huge reason the 5th ed cleric seems very gimped to me.


David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Wrath wrote:

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

Healing in combat faces the same arguments against in 5E as in Pathfinder, I think. Cure wounds is just not that great (and healing word is so weak as to be very situational).

I don't think giving up on doing damage and switching to healing in combat is going to be much of a good strategy, at least for a low level cleric. Maybe things change later, but the paucity of high level spell slots is going to make it a difficult choice to spend them on healing, I'd guess.

Combat healing works well in Pathfinder with channels, especially quicken channel. I'm not sure why it get such a bad rap.

My understanding is that there's nearly always a better option than healing hit points of your allies. I don't have a strong view wrt pathfinder though - I've just taken the advice of those who know the system well.

In 5E I'm reasonably confident that healing is not generally as good an option (except in specific situations) as doing damage. So I would be skeptical of the bolded.


David Bowles wrote:
Through channeling, you are tacking on dozens or even hundreds of hps of damage EXTRA that the enemy must plow through. That seems very powerful to me, and a huge reason the 5th ed cleric seems very gimped to me.

That makes some of your earlier posts make much more sense to me. I haven't previously seen many people extol channeling as what makes a PF cleric powerful.


so,

is it still the place to talk about the nice things of Pathfinder and 5e D&D, or has this ship sailed three pages ago...


Laurefindel wrote:

so,

is it still the place to talk about the nice things of Pathfinder and 5e D&D, or has this ship sailed three pages ago...

Let alone 4e....

I think 5e does a decent job of incorporating elements and mechanics of both 3e/PF and 4E with a focus on story and narrative. It doesn't do PF or 4e well and that, IMO, is a feature because those games are already out and available


Yeah. You do need to play differently
It is dangerous but not in the gm/player may fluke a crit and do damage >>> than HP

Magic missile and sleep are potent again, like in fOND
Everyone feels more likely to succeed at skill checks
Combats last more rounds than PF, but are much quicker even though we are all 5e noobs
We did the 1st dungeon in Hotdq last night in 3 hours, and it was very fighty. Next chapter looks quite the opposite
Thus far we have done 1 chapter per session which is good


It isn't perfect but will post about that later as I have a DMG to go and buy!

The Exchange

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

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

No. I don't think that at all. The game plays completely differently to pathfinder and requires a whole new approach because of it.

Heal bot cleric means the enemy has already taken one member out of the fight. Plus he's just painted a big target on his back for ranges enemies.

Really, if you play it for a few weeks, you'll get what I mean. My experiences are meaningless to you. It's something you need to experience yourself, for more than one session.

Either way, as long as you have a game you enjoy, which seems to be pathfinder in your case, then win win really.


Laurefindel wrote:

so,

is it still the place to talk about the nice things of Pathfinder and 5e D&D, or has this ship sailed three pages ago...

Seems that ship has sailed about 200+ replies ago.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think more than once it's been pointed out to David that he try the game. Yet seems to find new reasons not too imo. So I think it's a waste of time. I think he dislikes 5E yet is trying to find a reason without actually saying that he hates it to not try it. First thing I saw after reading the PHB that both casters and martials were balanced. That both had to be careful in combat or they would be in trouble.

We can still talk about 4E, 5E, Pathfinder. It just seems either we have those who want to edition war Say only negative things on the subject. Or appear to be open minded on a subject yet truly are not. I know it's the internet and a forum. It just feel frustrating when trying to talk to some posters.


Wrath wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Wrath wrote:

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

No. I don't think that at all. The game plays completely differently to pathfinder and requires a whole new approach because of it.

Heal bot cleric means the enemy has already taken one member out of the fight. Plus he's just painted a big target on his back for ranges enemies.

Really, if you play it for a few weeks, you'll get what I mean. My experiences are meaningless to you. It's something you need to experience yourself, for more than one session.

Either way, as long as you have a game...

A life cleric is a very potent addition to a party, heavy armor, extra healing, channel divinity AOE healing, good melee attack, good selection of spells *OMG bless*.

Personaly, I find all the cleric domains realy interesting and inspiring, and they lend themselves to a lot of playstyles.

Warder

Silver Crusade

memorax wrote:

I think more than once it's been pointed out to David that he try the game. Yet seems to find new reasons not too imo. So I think it's a waste of time. I think he dislikes 5E yet is trying to find a reason without actually saying that he hates it to not try it. First thing I saw after reading the PHB that both casters and martials were balanced. That both had to be careful in combat or they would be in trouble.

We can still talk about 4E, 5E, Pathfinder. It just seems either we have those who want to edition war Say only negative things on the subject. Or appear to be open minded on a subject yet truly are not. I know it's the internet and a forum. It just feel frustrating when trying to talk to some posters.

I played it once at level 3 (I think). The game very much felt like stripped down Pathfinder, while giving nothing back in return. I don't see any reason to play it again. I'm not asking anyone to quit playing 5th, I'm more asking why someone who enjoys casters would play 5th.

Silver Crusade

Wrath wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Wrath wrote:

I'm DMing a game that's gone from first to sixth level so far. Just some points to counter things brought up here.

This version is dangerous for everyone, caster or martial. In other words, it's balanced that way.

Casters can cast a spell in combat and not provoke. That saves their bacon more than needing to run away. Or they can cast any of the numerous hold, slow, web etc spells that prevents the enemy pursuing them, then run away without fear.

Divine casters don't need channel, because there are other healing mechanics like second wind and short rests that does that for them. It's rare I see the situation where clerics are heal bots in 5e at all.

The entire game is designed to work well with its own mechanics. It's beautifully balanced so far. And sooooooo simple to DM it isn't funny.

Players use tactics as a group more than in Pathfinder. I also see more roleplay and more attempts at unusual ways to deal with situations because unlike pathfinder, a players imagination has more impact on what he can do in a game than the character sheet itself. Players aren't limited in things they can try because they don't have the feats for it.

It really is a different game to pathfinder completely, in how it plays at least.

Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.

No. I don't think that at all. The game plays completely differently to pathfinder and requires a whole new approach because of it.

Heal bot cleric means the enemy has already taken one member out of the fight. Plus he's just painted a big target on his back for ranges enemies.

Really, if you play it for a few weeks, you'll get what I mean. My experiences are meaningless to you. It's something you need to experience yourself, for more than one session.

Either way, as long as you have a game...

Healbot cleric is actually trying to prevent other PCs from being taken out. Also, clerics have always been a prime target for ranged attackers. That's another reason channel is so good. The cleric is healing themself as well.


David Bowles wrote:
memorax wrote:

I think more than once it's been pointed out to David that he try the game. Yet seems to find new reasons not too imo. So I think it's a waste of time. I think he dislikes 5E yet is trying to find a reason without actually saying that he hates it to not try it. First thing I saw after reading the PHB that both casters and martials were balanced. That both had to be careful in combat or they would be in trouble.

We can still talk about 4E, 5E, Pathfinder. It just seems either we have those who want to edition war Say only negative things on the subject. Or appear to be open minded on a subject yet truly are not. I know it's the internet and a forum. It just feel frustrating when trying to talk to some posters.

I played it once at level 3 (I think). The game very much felt like stripped down Pathfinder, while giving nothing back in return. I don't see any reason to play it again. I'm not asking anyone to quit playing 5th, I'm more asking why someone who enjoys casters would play 5th.

Did you not find it simpler?

That's the big payoff for me (although 5E isn't my game of choice, it's a good compromise for our group). I like games where there aren't lots of potential factors influencing a skill/attack/spell check. sometimes our sessions run less than three hours. Games like 4E and Pathfinder can have combats that last longer than that - I like the fact we can enter an important, set piece combat with half an hour to go and not worry about if we'll still be fighting in an hour.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
memorax wrote:

I think more than once it's been pointed out to David that he try the game. Yet seems to find new reasons not too imo. So I think it's a waste of time. I think he dislikes 5E yet is trying to find a reason without actually saying that he hates it to not try it. First thing I saw after reading the PHB that both casters and martials were balanced. That both had to be careful in combat or they would be in trouble.

We can still talk about 4E, 5E, Pathfinder. It just seems either we have those who want to edition war Say only negative things on the subject. Or appear to be open minded on a subject yet truly are not. I know it's the internet and a forum. It just feel frustrating when trying to talk to some posters.

I played it once at level 3 (I think). The game very much felt like stripped down Pathfinder, while giving nothing back in return. I don't see any reason to play it again. I'm not asking anyone to quit playing 5th, I'm more asking why someone who enjoys casters would play 5th.

Did you not find it simpler?

That's the big payoff for me (although 5E isn't my game of choice, it's a good compromise for our group). I like games where there aren't lots of potential factors influencing a skill/attack/spell check. sometimes our sessions run less than three hours. Games like 4E and Pathfinder can have combats that last longer than that - I like the fact we can enter an important, set piece combat with half an hour to go and not worry about if we'll still be fighting in an hour.

I did not find it substantially simpler, no. I found it stripped down, which is different. People are still moving models, rolling D20, adding modifiers and then determining what happens. Yes, the modifiers are smaller, and progress less quickly. But I don't think that's a good thing. I think that introduces stagnation into the game. I think people have forgotten that low level Pathfinder is just as fast, because approximately the same number of dice are being rolled.

There was still a sheet with a bunch of numbers that I had to refer to. The game still has AOOs, just under different conditions. The games still has classes and class features. The game doesn't quite have vancian spell casting, but everyone is effectively a Pathfinder arcanist instead. I like the dichotomy of prepared vs spontaneous casters.

Maybe the game is faster at higher level, but martials still get piles of attacks. If faster is the goal, 4th edition severely limited extra swings, but everyone hates on that edition. People on here are telling me that no one in 5th seems to cause high levels of damage, so this seems to me that it would cause combats to drag on and on and on. Now that I think about it, I can believe this because I spend most of my 5th ed game missing my target.

" I like games where there aren't lots of potential factors influencing a skill/attack/spell check. "

If I want that, I'll play Storyteller system.


I found it much simpler. Not as simple as I'd like, but still simpler.
Your comment about moving models reminded me of another benefit - I'm not really a fan of grid based combat either, which is another plus for me as the grid isn't as baked in with 5E as it is with 4E/PF.

Out of interest, who told you "...no one in 5th seems to cause high levels of damage"? I think they're quite wrong about that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:


I did not find it substantially simpler, no. I found it stripped down, which is different. People are still moving models, rolling D20, adding modifiers and then determining what happens. Yes, the modifiers are smaller, and progress less quickly. But I don't think that's a good thing.

It's not the size of the modifiers in a PF battle that bother me, it's the number of them. That's part of where I see the simplification.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


I did not find it substantially simpler, no. I found it stripped down, which is different. People are still moving models, rolling D20, adding modifiers and then determining what happens. Yes, the modifiers are smaller, and progress less quickly. But I don't think that's a good thing.
It's not the size of the modifiers in a PF battle that bother me, it's the number of them. That's part of where I see the simplification.

5th ed seems to have chopped both of them down. Too much for my taste. Without the large number of modifiers, the range in which the game is play is greatly reduced, making differentiation of skill levels and enemies more difficult for the devs. It's the same problem Heroclix has. Every clix has an attack value from 8 to 12 and a defense from 15 to 20. They limited their own dynamic range, making it more difficult to differentiate different power levels of different heroes.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:

I found it much simpler. Not as simple as I'd like, but still simpler.

Your comment about moving models reminded me of another benefit - I'm not really a fan of grid based combat either, which is another plus for me as the grid isn't as baked in with 5E as it is with 4E/PF.

Out of interest, who told you "...no one in 5th seems to cause high levels of damage"? I think they're quite wrong about that.

Some people have insisted that the martials being able to move and full attack in the same round is not an issue, because they can't cause enough damage to threaten a caster. I therefore find it necessarily true that they can't do enough damage to threaten a monster that is substantially tougher than a caster. Unless, of course, the monster AREN'T tougher than casters, which seems very unlikely.


David Bowles wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


I did not find it substantially simpler, no. I found it stripped down, which is different. People are still moving models, rolling D20, adding modifiers and then determining what happens. Yes, the modifiers are smaller, and progress less quickly. But I don't think that's a good thing.
It's not the size of the modifiers in a PF battle that bother me, it's the number of them. That's part of where I see the simplification.
5th ed seems to have chopped both of them down. Too much for my taste. Without the large number of modifiers, the range in which the game is play is greatly reduced, making differentiation of skill levels and enemies more difficult for the devs. It's the same problem Heroclix has. Every clix has an attack value from 8 to 12 and a defense from 15 to 20. They limited their own dynamic range, making it more difficult to differentiate different power levels of different heroes.

Yeah. I don't think its a very good simulation (four "sources" of disadvantage being negated by one source of advantage being one obvious case). Then again, I have a pet theory that complicated games just appear to be better simulations than simpler ones anyhow.

Nonetheless, in answer to your question about why someone who liked playing casters would like 5E, I think they would if they valued simple, quick task resolution. That's certainly high up on my list.


David Bowles wrote:
Some people have insisted that the martials being able to move and full attack in the same round is not an issue, because they can't cause enough damage to threaten a caster. I therefore find it necessarily true that they can't do enough damage to threaten a monster that is substantially tougher than a caster.

I think it's not an issue because the casters have ways to protect themselves.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Some people have insisted that the martials being able to move and full attack in the same round is not an issue, because they can't cause enough damage to threaten a caster. I therefore find it necessarily true that they can't do enough damage to threaten a monster that is substantially tougher than a caster.
I think it's not an issue because the casters have ways to protect themselves.

True, but they've also nerfed spells like mirror image pretty badly. I would not feel confident at all playing an arcane caster in 5th against a tactically minded GM. And shield only lasts one round? Yeah, it's one more AC than in PF, but in PF, it lasts an entire combat, or perhaps two if extended. I don't know how anyone can tell me that they didn't gut arcane casters.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

And you never will, because:

1) You've determined, after one session, that the game isn't for you,
2) you look for things that people say about the game with the intention of taking them out of context as proof that poor maligned spellcasters have been nerfed to become unplayable (pretty f%@%ing laughable, given the history of the game),
3) and most importantly, you don't WANT to like 5e.

Shadow Lodge

A question for you, David? Do you refuse to play Pathfinder because monks are so horribly compared to, say, wizards?

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:

And you never will, because:

1) You've determined, after one session, that the game isn't for you,
2) you look for things that people say about the game with the intention of taking them out of context as proof that poor maligned spellcasters have been nerfed to become unplayable (pretty f%*~ing laughable, given the history of the game),
3) and most importantly, you don't WANT to like 5e.

It's true that I like more complex systems over simpler systems. I just don't understand the things they chose to remove from 5th. And the compression of possible modifiers. Sure, I can understand fewer modifiers, but the whole proficiency thing is terrible I think.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
A question for you, David? Do you refuse to play Pathfinder because monks are so horribly compared to, say, wizards?

I feel that mostly true in PFS, not homebrews. So.... no?

401 to 450 of 1,086 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5th Edition vs Pathfinder Critique All Messageboards