To be honest, 5e is what made me jump into the Pathfinder boat.
I know 5e just got released last year, but after playing some adventures with it, I noticed it has even less variety regarding classes, and even the core ones are bland and boring.
I played Princes of Apocalypse with friends, one of them a ranger, and he felt down looking at how weak and boring the Animal Companion options were, and how he had to trade the fighting potential of the ranger in order to have one; same, our wizard was unhappy on how her character couldn't get the summons she could on Pathfinder.
I didn't wanted to get into Pathfinder, it seemed way too complex (and it can be...), but I ended up reading it, studying PF about a month, grabbed Kingmaker, and now we're having a blast, as we've never had in any other role playing game.
While I think 5e does a lot of things way better than PF regarding simplicity and cutting some slack for the GM (Well, after PF Unchained this is arguable, since the Revised Action Economy is a lot of fun), PF just seems to have everything a GM and player would want, from short adventures to lengthy campaigns, lots of free material thanks to the OGL, and of course, customization options.
This makes me wonder, will 5e ever make it to be close to what PF is now in terms of options? Because even the previews of the new class archetypes seem boring, and as I said before, some of the core classes like the ranger, wizard and druid got wrecked by the 5e rulings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally hope not. I am very happy with the amount of options available with the core game. I find that even with the vast options available in PF I can't create the characters that I want.
And luckily for me the current trend does not point towards a vast increase in new rules content. 5e also doesn't seem to have the same OGL support that encourages 3pp content.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When assessing how many "options" 5E has compared to PF, you have to remember a couple of things:
First, it's easy to overlook a lot of the options 5E has because they don't require feat chains or specialized abilities to perform; you can just DO them. For instance, literally anyone can use TWFing with no investment in 5E, but I bet a lot of people see fighter's (and a couple of pseudo-fighters') TWF style boost, and think they're the only classes that can TWF, and chalk it up to 5E having fewer options than PF, when really it's an example of the opposite. There are lots of examples of that: PF trains you to expect an "Ability to do X" feat, you see no such feature in 5E, and think (incorrectly) that you don't have that option in 5E.
Second, what counts as an "option"? Is it literally anything you could theoretically choose for your character? Or does it only count as an "option" if it's something you might actually use? I lean toward the latter, which causes PF to have far fewer "options" than its accumulated pagecount would suggest. 5E, on the other hand, has a lot fewer "selectables" that you'll never take than PF does.
The option gap is far smaller than it seems at first glance.
What I mean is, at least for me, there's less flavor to be found on 5e classes as of now. As I mentioned, 5e seems to take out much of the "cool" stuff 3.5 and PF had ruled.
The ranger, again, why do I have to sacrifice the cool things i, as a character, can do, in order to tell a CR 1/2 boring creature to attack every round? Why can't a ranger have an awesome T-rex or Wollyped? All that has to be houseruled and in the end it brings more work on the shoulders of the GM; at least I am the sort of GM that likes to have a rule for everything instead of making up stuff as we play.
Tho it's true most of the "options" on PF are things no one will ever use, when you do it's extremely fun. Ok, so, you could have a Fighter in 5e that looks, talks, moves, and fights like a Samurai, but he has the same stats and attacks as a Gladiator; it's just re skinning stuff for the sake of flavor.
But in PF I can have a Samurai that fights like a Samurai, acts like a samurai and moves like a Samurai, and that is mechanically different from the Fighter that also wears Samurai Armor, fights and moves like one. Who cares if some feats ore skills are "sub par"? PF gives me and my group what we need for most cases and there's no need to make things optimized as long as they're fun, and for me that's why some of those rules exist.
I have a Cavalier 4 that will take a Sorcerer 1 and Dragon Disciple from there, who has been using the opportunities presented to roleplay his background and how he slowly discovers his heritage. I can't so all that cool stuff with my group in 5E without houseruling all of that.
|
Try here for summon spells.
World Builder Blog Summon Spells
Simple fix.
As for everything else, either you like 5th edition or you don't, but I doubt that more options would necessarily change that. If Pathfinder is better for you, there might simply be a fundamental difference in both systems that can't be altered by adding more to a system that might not be a good fit.
5e erred on the side of caution with the Animal Companion because they realized how absurdly powerful it is to break the action economy.
It's difficult to balance some classes getting two turns to another class getting one.
I'm fine with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Tho it's true most of the "options" on PF are things no one will ever use, when you do it's extremely fun.
I think we might be talking about different things here. I totally agree that there are some "underdogs" out there that don't get used much but can still be fun to play with. But those aren't the things I meant.
Ok, so, you could have a Fighter in 5e that looks, talks, moves, and fights like a Samurai, but he has the same stats and attacks as a Gladiator; it's just re skinning stuff for the sake of flavor.
Speaking generally, I fully agree that things which are labeled as being different but are mechanically identical aren't actually different. For instance, pretending that Bob is a sneaky master thief and Alice is a brutish musclehead when they both have the same odds of success with thief-related skills is pretty silly. So I'm with you so far.
But in PF I can have a Samurai that fights like a Samurai, acts like a samurai and moves like a Samurai, and that is mechanically different from the Fighter that also wears Samurai Armor, fights and moves like one.
Maybe you and I have different mental images of a "samurai" and it's confusing the example, but what exactly does a "samurai" need to be able to do to set it apart from other manifestations of the fighter, that you can't get in 5E? To me, being a samurai means being an honor-driven, heavily-armored warrior (especially with a sword). That seems pretty doable in 5E. What's missing?
Who cares if some feats ore skills are "sub par"? PF gives me and my group what we need for most cases and there's no need to make things optimized as long as they're fun, and for me that's why some of those rules exist.
"Sub par" and "optimized" are things that you are adding to the conversation; they were not part of my post. If you've got a bone to pick with someone who kicked you for taking a not-totally-optimal character option, take it up with them, not me.
I have a Cavalier 4 that will take a Sorcerer 1 and Dragon Disciple from there, who has been using the opportunities presented to roleplay his background and how he slowly discovers his heritage. I can't so all that cool stuff with my group in 5E without houseruling all of that.
I don't understand why you can't produce this character in 5E.
From my perspective, any new content PF gets I can adapt for 5e.
So factoring in the existing 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e, PF, and OGL content I have already, it looks to me that 5e is sitting in a pretty good position.
|
|
Really, all you have to say is "5th edition doesn't meet my needs". I think that even those of us that regard it well are aware of its weaknesses. I rather like the simplicity, and I don't especially see a need to create builds that break the mold. That mold is already broken, and if I wanted that experience, I still have all of my Pathfinder books at the ready.
To me this thread smacks of "I don't like 5th edition, so let me pontificate on the exact weaknesses of the system so as to make it look unfavorable". To that I say "don't sweat it."
*Quotes in the preceding paragraphs are to be taken as "air quotes"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5e has more class and race options in it's PHB than Pathfinder has in it's CRB.
Many of the "options" that Pathfinder has aren't "options" in 5e because you can simply just do them without having to burn a feat on them. It's also worth noting that almost all of these options are not only viable, but pretty well balanced.)
Frankly, if the only future official books for 5e were adventures, settings, and monster manuals, I'd be absolutely fine with that (especially if we could shove them out of the best-Forgotten Realms...preferably into Greyhawk or Ebberon). And quite a few 3PP are already publishing stuff for 5e.
The most notable is probably Necromancer Games...they have published a monster book, a book of spells, a free adventure, and three volumes of adventures (with a lot more adventures planned). They also have a supplement called "Book of Alchemy" coming out for all three systems that FGG/NG supports.
|
|
As for splats, they pretty obviously won't have as many first-party splats as Pathfinder. Hell, it's been a year since the first 5e books came out, and the three core rulebooks are still the only non-adventure books to be published. And I haven't seen any announcement of any coming, either (there's going to be another adventure book, and a Savage Coast setting book, but nothing on the schedule past that).
I think WotC might be experimenting to see what the LACK of pumping out splats will do for a system's lifespan. I'm sure if sales drop off significantly, we'll begin to see the splats flow. But if they stay high, as they seemingly have for the past year, then I think that 5e may see remarkably few releases that aren't setting or adventure books.
They also have a supplement called "Book of Alchemy" coming out for all three systems that FGG/NG supports.
They do? Where's the info about that?
What I mean is, at least for me, there's less flavor to be found on 5e classes as of now. As I mentioned, 5e seems to take out much of the "cool" stuff 3.5 and PF had ruled.
It seems to me that you should play Pathfinder, because it suits you better (I just mention that to be clear that I'm not trying to 'persuade you' to like 5E).
However, part of it might be the mindset you are viewing 5E from. When you say 5E has "taken out" the cool stuff "3.5 and PF had ruled" and when you say "some of the core classes like the ranger, wizard and druid got wrecked by the 5e rulings" it kind of sounds to me that you're looking at 5E to replicate what you can get from 3.5/PF. I think, viewed that way, 5E will always be a disappointment - it's never going to do as good a job of being Pathfinder as Pathfinder does.
5E is designed to meet very different goals that Pathfinder was, in my view:
If I want to play a game where there's substantial reward for putting a lot of effort into "PC-building" then I think Pathfinder is the way to go. There's a huge payoff mechanically from knowing the system well and from utilising that knowledge.
In contrast, if my goal is to start rolling some dice and have a character in the action within 15 minutes. Where combats are resolved very rapidly, where skill-checks are adjudicated on-the-fly (losing out on some simulationist focus in exchange for gaining some smoothness of play) then I prefer playing 5E.
I don't see any difference in "flavor" between the two systems, but then again I don't expect that from a rulebook really.
As for splats, they pretty obviously won't have as many first-party splats as Pathfinder. Hell, it's been a year since the first 5e books came out, and the three core rulebooks are still the only non-adventure books to be published. And I haven't seen any announcement of any coming, either (there's going to be another adventure book, and a Savage Coast setting book, but nothing on the schedule past that).
I think WotC might be experimenting to see what the LACK of pumping out splats will do for a system's lifespan. I'm sure if sales drop off significantly, we'll begin to see the splats flow. But if they stay high, as they seemingly have for the past year, then I think that 5e may see remarkably few releases that aren't setting or adventure books.
They do have their first splat book coming. It is the SWORD COAST ADVENTURER’S GUIDE
I think I would have been happy if they hadn't brought out anymore player material until next November. There is a lot of material to to explore and have fun with.
There is only one splat book I am overly interested in, and that is an Ebberron Adventurer's(though if it doesn't include eberron Iconic psionics material, I would also be wanting a psionics book), and that is mostly to open up some of the setting specific stuff that the currently existent classes cover poorly. Once I have that, honestly, I would be happy with nothing but monster and NPC books for the next couple of years.
Edit: What I suspect is going to be the model, is that we will see one or two adventurer's guides a year, mostly focused on the forgotten realms, each covering a geographic area (or campaign setting for stuff that isn't the forgotten realms).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently switching to 5e after playing Pathfinder for three years for the same reason you chose PF over 5e. Options.
There are just too many of them for my tastes.
One of my players put it this way: "I always hated picking feats. I would spend a long time poring over the options and then just give up in frustration and choose one on whim."
For players who want to get to the game as quickly as possible, 5e is clearly superior. For those who want to be highly rewarded for system mastery and who want mechanics that reflect flavor choices, Pathfinder is the way to go.
No way is wrong but they reflect different play styles.
They do have their first splat book coming. It is the SWORD COAST ADVENTURER’S GUIDE
I think I would have been happy if they hadn't brought out anymore player material until next November. There is a lot of material to to explore and have fun with.
And interestingly enough, it's not at all setting-neutral like the Advanced and Ultimate rulebooks in PF. This book is grounded in the campaign setting and storyline.
From this description, it almost sounds like a compendium of AP Player's Guides:
The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide is also a great way to catch up on recent events in the Forgotten Realms, to get background on locations featured in the Rage of Demons storyline coming in September, and to learn the lore behind video games like Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends.
Makes me wonder if future "splatbooks" will have this focus on region and campaign setting. Or, really, if anything will be "setting-neutral." It also makes me wonder how much of it will be relevant to those playing a 5e game not set in the Forgotten Realms. I cancelled a preorder so I could find out more before buying it.
Their first "splat book" being so deep into Forgotten Realms, makes me a little apprehensive. Especially since I have no use for that horrid setting. This book will be mostly useless for me, though like the many other setting-specific books through the years, I will probably take some things, throw away the trash that is FR-specific, and try to make it more setting neutral so as to put it into my own setting.
I am sure any others they publish will be deep into the crappy Forgotten Realms, because WotC has a massive hard one for that setting, and have since basically they released the FRCS back in 3rd edition, throwing Eberron away (basically).
Their first "splat book" being so deep into Forgotten Realms, makes me a little apprehensive. Especially since I have no use for that horrid setting. This book will be mostly useless for me, though like the many other setting-specific books through the years, I will probably take some things, throw away the trash that is FR-specific, and try to make it more setting neutral so as to put it into my own setting.
I am sure any others they publish will be deep into the crappy Forgotten Realms, because WotC has a massive hard one for that setting, and have since basically they released the FRCS back in 3rd edition, throwing Eberron away (basically).
I'm not a fan of FR myself, but I'm looking foward for that book, as so far 5e while set in the Sword Coast Region as kept as generic as they could, and don't seem to require you to have deep Realms lore to enjoy the material provide. If this book can be similar to the old Greyhawk Gazeteer from 3.0 with a bit more crunch, then I'll be more than happy, as it will be easy to copy paste the sword coast into my homebrew without having to care to much for all the realms lore :)
While I disagree that 5e has more viable options in the core rule book than Pathfinder, I do agree that the gap isn't as large as it may seem. You might not have an option for a unique samurai fighting mechanic and while I could see that and other similar options as a way they could continue expanding on the rules, but given the number of classes and the unique way a few of the races interact, I believe that are still easily more concepts within a single class that I could go a few years with necessarily seeing a particular build be repeated in the group. There are a lot of systems that I like even without having support beyond the core rule book and 5th edition gives a lot of room to build unique characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They also have a supplement called "Book of Alchemy" coming out for all three systems that FGG/NG supports.They do? Where's the info about that?
Table of Contents page for Quests of Doom 2 has an "Other Products" section, and it's on the list. No info other than the title.
Awesome. Thanks. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit I was a bit surprised at WotC's release strategy but I think they have learnt that the splat book treadmill is not always well liked, so they are going broad rather than deep with the D&D brand - smaller number of releases but covering more mediums e.g. table top RPGs , miniatures games, PC games and even another go at a new movie!
Personally I am more than happy with the options in the core books, it feels like each class has greater choices with their pathways at level 3, plus Backgrounds are amazing to differentiate characters allowing mage theives, religious rogues, and artisan warriors.
Whilst there may not be as many choices in character creation / levelling (though still not sure about that) I find that 5e encourages more options in play.
For example, if you have a decent Athletics then you can elect to trip, push someone back or grab them. In 3.5 and PF unless you have the feat you are dissuaded from such an option due to AoOs etc.
Other examples are two weapon fighting, finesse weapons etc that allow players to choose those options without needing feats.
Finally, the way spells prep works again encourages more options. You no longer have to choose between that utility spell that *might* come in handy and another instance of that combat spell that will definitely get used; often the latter wins out in PF and so those utility spells don't see as much use as they perhaps should.
In 5e you can prepare both spells and then during play decide which to cast and use up your spell slots - so you could cast that combat spell twice, or you could cast it once and use the utility spell. And if the utility spell is a ritual you can probably cast the combat spell twice and still use the utility spell! In this 5e took the best options from 3.5 & 4e.
Overall, 5e is great and really makes me think why should I keep any of my 3.5 or 4e stuff (Eberron setting books is the answer plus the possibility of playing in a 3.5 or 4e game in the future).
What I really wish WotC would do is run their organised play campaign more like Paizo - allow home play of Expeditions!
|
I don't think 5e has any intention of catching up with Pathfinder, but it's also designed to require less content.
I think a lot of it probably comes down to GMing style. If you're comfortable learning a lot of rules and knowing when to ignore them, Pathfinder won't give you problems. If you're comfortable making up rulings on the fly and remembering them, 5e will work.
Similarly, a player that just wants to show up to play will need some help with Pathfinder. But a player that enjoys the mechanical game-outside-the-session won't get that in 5e.
Obviously there's more to it than that, but they're aimed at totally different levels of completeness.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
I'd also be inclined to say that more options tend to get in the way of a character concept, rather than the other way around. If I don't see an option I want that fits my character, that usually means that I have to work with the game master, and I regularly bend over backwards to accommodate such players. Still though, I imagine that in time we'll have a spiffy samurai archetype or some such. It could even be a ranger archetype. Ideas...
Character concepts are even more flexible with backgrounds as well! Want a samurai? Why not a fighter with a background that reflects his fealty? And the code of honor could be among his traits! Having some coded bonus for being a samurai is not nearly as important as acting like one.
In fact, that gives me a few more ideas...
To be honest, 5e is what made me jump into the Pathfinder boat.
I know 5e just got released last year, but after playing some adventures with it, I noticed it has even less variety regarding classes, and even the core ones are bland and boring.
I played Princes of Apocalypse with friends, one of them a ranger, and he felt down looking at how weak and boring the Animal Companion options were, and how he had to trade the fighting potential of the ranger in order to have one; same, our wizard was unhappy on how her character couldn't get the summons she could on Pathfinder.
I didn't wanted to get into Pathfinder, it seemed way too complex (and it can be...), but I ended up reading it, studying PF about a month, grabbed Kingmaker, and now we're having a blast, as we've never had in any other role playing game.
While I think 5e does a lot of things way better than PF regarding simplicity and cutting some slack for the GM (Well, after PF Unchained this is arguable, since the Revised Action Economy is a lot of fun), PF just seems to have everything a GM and player would want, from short adventures to lengthy campaigns, lots of free material thanks to the OGL, and of course, customization options.
This makes me wonder, will 5e ever make it to be close to what PF is now in terms of options? Because even the previews of the new class archetypes seem boring, and as I said before, some of the core classes like the ranger, wizard and druid got wrecked by the 5e rulings.
5e's material official and made by 3pp will never match PF or 3.X for that matter.
WotC wants to use the D&D brand to make video games, movies and cartoons. The PnP RPG is ancillary to this business model.
With APs like Hell's Revenge, Paizo is firmly in place as the leader in terms of creativity. Maybe in sells too, after a year or two not much PnP RPG content for D&D.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Character concepts are even more flexible with backgrounds as well! Want a samurai? Why not a fighter with a background that reflects his fealty? And the code of honor could be among his traits!
If memory serves, one of the illustrations in the Backgrounds chapter (I think next to the "knight" variant of the "noble" background, but I could be mistaken) is, in fact, a samurai.
Having some coded bonus for being a samurai is not nearly as important as acting like one.
Ehhhh.... Yes and no.
I'll start with the "no": it is vital to a roleplaying experience that meaningful differences between characters are represented mechanically. If two characters have identical chances of success at disarming the trap, but you have one of them say to the other, "I'd better let you handle this, Mr. Sneakythief," that's just nonsense. In fact, I'll even go so far as to call it an actual failure to roleplay, because that's not really what those characters would do (unless they're seriously deluded about their own capabilities). Thus, in order to have that "Better let you handle this" roleplay moment, there need to be mechanics in place such that the dialogue would actually make sense in character.
On the other hand, does everything need to be mechanically represented? I say no. I'm all for differentiating (mechanically) between a raging barbarian and a studied martial master. I'm all for further differentiating two studied martial masters based on whether they use an armorless duelist style or an armored dual-wielding style. But do we really need to create different statistics based on the exact degree of curvature of the sword(s) and whether his armor has round or square plates? I personally have no need for that.
I'd hazard a guess that 99% of RPG gamers could agree to the general statement that meaningfully different character concepts need to have those differences reflected in the mechanics. The sticking point is just what constitutes "meaningfully different character concepts". For some, it's no more than whether you're focused on weapons or magic, and everything else is just window dressing. For others, the specific tenets of eastern and western feudal/knight codes are significant enough to merit mechanical differentiation. For others, it's somewhere in between.
So although I suspect that the earlier poster who felt he couldn't build a samurai in 5E might have just not looked closely enough at 5E's options, it's also possible that he wants a much finer degree of mechanical differentiation than I do, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Write down a personal code.A ribbon
You don't need to make the code numeric
Many games cope well with non mechanical flaws, edges, etc.
In PF these things need a number, in 5e not so much
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If memory serves, one of the illustrations in the Backgrounds chapter (I think next to the "knight" variant of the "noble" background, but I could be mistaken) is, in fact, a samurai.
The illustration is actually by the soldier background, however this could indeed be the best way to implement a samurai mechanically in 5e.
Basically, give them History and Intimidation proficiency, proficiency in Calligraphy supplies or similar artistic toolset, some appropriate gear and a feature that reflects their code of honour and also the respect and privilege they gain from that.
You are even allowed to create a custom background in their Adventurers League organised play campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's all cool, DigitalMage, but if we're going to follow gamer etiquette, first we have have a five hour argument about the difference between a samurai and a bushi, 'kay?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Basically, give them History and Intimidation proficiency, proficiency in Calligraphy supplies or similar artistic toolset, some appropriate gear and a feature that reflects their code of honour and also the respect and privilege they gain from that.
Come to think of it, the Battle Master fighter archetype includes proficiency with calligraphy supplies, and the more I think about it, the more I think the whole archetype has a bit of "eastern enlightened warrior" influence. That's probably exactly how to make a samurai-type character in 5E.
|
|
Having some coded bonus for being a samurai is not nearly as important as acting like one.Ehhhh.... Yes and no.
I'll start with the "no": it is vital to a roleplaying experience that meaningful differences between characters are represented mechanically. If two characters have identical chances of success at disarming the trap, but you have one of them say to the other, "I'd better let you handle this, Mr. Sneakythief," that's just nonsense. In fact, I'll even go so far as to call it an actual failure to roleplay, because that's not really what those characters would do (unless they're seriously deluded about their own capabilities). Thus, in order to have that "Better let you handle this" roleplay moment, there need to be mechanics in place such that the dialogue would actually make sense in character.
On the other hand, does everything need to be mechanically represented? I say no. I'm all for differentiating (mechanically) between a raging barbarian and a studied martial master. I'm all for further differentiating two studied martial masters based on whether they use an armorless duelist style or an armored dual-wielding style. But do we really need to create different statistics based on the exact degree of curvature of the sword(s) and whether his armor has round or square plates? I personally have no need for that.
I'd hazard a guess that 99% of RPG gamers could agree to the general statement that meaningfully different character concepts need to have those differences reflected in the mechanics. The sticking point is just what constitutes...
Well, sure, but I come from a background that was largely drawn from White Wolf and point buy, in which concept shaped character generation and growth more fluidly. I see 5th edition as more malleable in this respect where the rules (bounded accuracy, allowance of archetypes, inclusion of backgrounds etc) made it so that the customization was to adjust the rules to the concept, rather than conform a concept to the rules.
Yes, it would be nice to differentiate two fighters mechanically, and that is a valid concern, but 5th edition already does such a good job of that. To that end, I feel confident about the fact that I don't have to shepherd players into certain class roles or away from resembling another player if they double up on some kind of mechanical niche.
Ultimately, if someone _wants_ their character to be reflected by complexity, this is not the game for them, and that's okay. I just think that the concerns expressed at the outset of this thread were less about a solution and more about an airing of grievances.
The fact that it has solicited very interesting and serviceable answers show me that the problem of making a samurai in 5th ed is a solvable one, while what the original petitioner wants is not a 5th ed solution, but to pronounce one system better than the other.
I say let sleeping dogs lie!
|
|
I was responding to the fact that you were asserting that mechanics were important too, to which I agreed.
To which I add that the intent and the mechanics need to be in concert. That's where the rubber meets the road, as it were.
But what I'm specifically advocating is that you have to find the system that suits your needs, and not admonish the ones that don't. I think 5th edition is pliant, but it doesn't satisfy the mechanical needs of some.
Whether it _restricts_ actual character concepts is a point to which I do not agree.
I think that's pretty clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could one use the Noble Background for samurai, and then use the Bond, Flaw, Ideal, etc., to flush out the details? The mechanical benefits would be the recovery of Inspiration. If he is very honorable, and fights honorably, and has his honor be his bond, he might be able to recover Inspiration multiple times in a single fight!
Fighter, Monk, or Paladin?
Cool....
It's kind of a pity that they're not doing more splatbooks since the classes (and races, and backgrounds) are so modular.
At least there are online sources from the D&D website.
I personally hope for lots of content over the lifetime of the product.
But, it's also really homebrew friendly. I mean, I've already up-verted most of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Psionics, the Artificer, and some other assorted rules.
And that should keep me good for a loooooooong time :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally hope not. I am very happy with the amount of options available with the core game.
You and I differ here. I have been bored with the core book options since the launch of 3.0. Elves, dwarves, fighters, wizards, etc have never been my thing. (Although I typically play wizards when I must play a core book class simply because I can come up with a list of spells few have seen before and that makes it interesting for me.) Once Pathfinder released the APG, I haven't touched a core book class since. Heck, I thought Pathfinder took FOREVER to release the Advanced Race Guide.
This does explain why my company has been so big into the Book of Heroic Race Series and why next month we're releasing our first 5e release in that series.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh really?
Yes. I entered the last round of edits to the races themselves last night. I'm working on the introduction now. It won't be long. Its covering:
- Catfolk
- Hagborn (Pathfinder changelings, but since Eberron has a shapeshifting race called changelings, we had to come up with a new name)
- Samsarans
- Tengus
- 7 (IIRC) new subraces for core book races. Subraces like cloud dwarves, ghost elves, wiseheart halflings, and river gnomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Bas-Lag supplement for 5th edition would be neat.
|
|
I'm sold. I've got enough adventures, I want more crunch and setting, and adventures really don't tend to present enough of that. The crunch and setting within the current adventure is disparate by nature. The plethora of current offerings is too dissonant for my tastes, but that is just part of being so invested so soon.
But all of that is to say kudos to you for giving us more content.
@Lorathorn (and any other curious folks): Posted this elsewhere on the forums, but here you go:
My Blog, home to some of my homebrew stuff.
Even has some Pathfinder stuff up.
Everything is WiP, mind, so PEACH :)
D'awww, thanks :)
The craziest thing is, I designed my psionics this way before WotC released the Mystic class playtest o.O