RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my players, myself included love customisation and complexity which isn't a vice in itself. We enjoy the nuances and quirks that you can create with such a rich system as pathfinder.This is the most significant weakness with 5E, in my opinion. There isn't a lot of tinkering you can do other than 'around the edges'. That suits me fine (I'd prefer less), but some of the people in our group are starting to feel that they're exhausting the options they're interested in which are allowed by the system.
It's worth bearing in mind that the customisation is part of what you're giving up going from Pathfinder to 5E (granted the majority of character-building options you're losing aren't terribly good, nonetheless the process is significantly different).
Interestingly, a peculiar thought recently occurred to me:
What if 5E's chassis is so elegant and streamlined that creating brand new content is actually less work than assembling the necessary pieces to build a complex/unique Pathfinder character?
I mean, I recently made a character for a 5E PbP whose backstory involved traveling the world to see new places and experience new cultures. He's a conversion of a Pathfinder character for another campaign that I ended up not joining. Now, for the Pathfinder version, I spent time weighing the difference between using the World Traveler human race trait, the Friend in Every Town social trait, the Cosmopolitan feat, and so forth. I went looking through pages of equipment/gear tables to find items that could represent souvenirs of his travels, and I recorded their prices and weights and so forth.
I spent a good deal of time sorting through the particulars.
Then when I went to convert him to 5E, he needed a "background", and I noticed that there's no "traveler" background; the closest is Outlander, but that's very "roughing it in the wilds", which is not at all what I was going for. So with the GM's permission, I created a custom background. I picked a combination of four tools/skills/languages, gave him two flavorful items (without having to look up stats for them!), and gave him traveler's clothes and a belt pouch with 10gp.
It took me, like, five minutes.
So when I had a concept I needed to represent with my character, the work it took to find/sort/apply Pathfinder's existing tools actually exceeded the amount of work it took to just invent something appropriate for 5E.
What if that applies to more than just backgrounds?
What if it's more work to find and assemble the traits, feats, archetypes, class levels, and magic items to embody a concept in Pathfinder than it is to make up a new path (or even class!) in 5E?
And here's the REAL kicker:
What if making stuff up to realize your concept in 5E will consistently produce more well-balanced characters than assembling the necessary pieces for a Pathfinder character?
Less work and more balanced to create new concepts in 5E than to assemble builds in Pathfinder... That might have an effect on the "5E is too constricting" topic, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. Here's a testament to how well 5e works.
My group decided to play Tomb of Horrors with 5e for Halloween (and the next two sessions beyond that). Or experience with 5e at that point was that the GM owned the PHB, DMG, and MM and has made a couple of level 1 characters. I had made several level 1 characters after harrowing his books. No one else in the group has even read the books, much less made a character.
Our gaming experience comprised of myself playing since 1990 through every edition since 2e (and I've even run some 1e games), plus various other RPGs, our GM and two other players who have only ever played PF, one guy who played 2e about 10 years ago and hasn't played since (this was his first foray back into table top gaming), and a guy who's played 2e, 3e, and maybe PF.
We decided to download all of the premade characters at level 10, and as each character died off we'd just randomly pick up another character from the stack and keep going.
Without knowing any of the rules except what the GM and I had read when making our level 1 characters, we were able to play the game without a hitch. With level 10 characters! You'd never be able to do that with Pathfinder. The complexity of pathfinder is so comparitively high that a new player would have a difficult time with a random character at level 1 or 2, much less 10! Try playing a wizard with no pathfinder experience and see if you could do it without hiccups.
But all six of us were able to play level 10 characters without ever playing 5e before, and the entire game went perfectly. With only one PHB at the table.
No one overshadowed anyone else. Everyone was always able to contribute. And no one was confused on the rules. The most challenging part was spell's, and even that was easy to understand and play, and people were able to look up and understand the spells so easily that they could do it on someone else's turn and be ready by their turn.
6 players. No 5e experience. Random premade level 10 characters, with new characters as one died. Smooth play with no confusion.
Then when I went to convert him to 5E, he needed a "background", and I noticed that there's no "traveler" background; the closest is Outlander, but that's very "roughing it in the wilds", which is not at all what I was going for. So with the GM's permission, I created a custom...
This is beside your point, but there is a Far Traveler background now in the new Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. It's proficiencies are Insight, Perception and either a musical instrument or a gaming set.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How well does 5e work to balance attributes, specifically strength vs dexterity?Very well.
For attacks and damage, any weapon with the "finesse" property gives you the option of using DEX in place of STR. However, finesse weapons have smaller damage dice than non-finesse weapons, and in 5E your weapon damage dice actually matter. Conversely, thrown weapons can use your STR in place of your DEX, but have less range/ammo than bows.
Thanks for the reply!
This is a good start. 4e had a similar stance at lower levels but by higher levels dice mattered much less. Assuming damage dice remain relevant this sounds like a fair trade. Dex-based characters do less overall damage in melee and strength-based characters had less range in ranged combat.
Going a little deeper, STR-based characters have a slight advantage in being able to (typically) use heavier armor, resulting in slightly higher AC than what DEX characters can achieve. Additionally, they're generally able to either use a two-handed weapon for higher damage or add a shield for +2 AC, while DEX PCs are stuck with one-handed weapons and often aren't proficient with shields. But on the other hand, DEX-based PCs will have higher initiative and better saves (more on that later).
This sounds like the same stance 3.5/PF has. I was hoping for something better than “strong characters wear more armor”. If dex is allowed to compete with strength is melee I’d like to see strength be able to compete with dex when it comes to AC. So strength’s only advantage is 1) Wearing heavier armor and 2) Doing more damage in melee by using two-handed weapons? What if you’re a strength-based character that uses one-handed weapons but not a shield? Are you just inherently worse? On top of that dex-based characters get better initiative and saves? Ouch.
This is slightly off. What's actually going on is that there's no such thing as Reflex, Fortitude or Will saves; instead, every stat has its own save (that is, you might make a DEX save or a CHA save or a WIS save or whatever).
Interestingly, DEX/CON/WIS are still the most common saves, and then every class is proficient in one "common" and one "uncommon" save. For instance, rogues get DEX/INT, fighters get STR/CON, clerics get WIS/CHA, etc. Hey look, more balance! ;)
Again, this sounds like more of the same. Dex-based saves are prevalent but strength-based saves are not. =/
Yeah, I've been working on making a bunch of conversions of classes and archetypes from PF to 5E and it's been super easy!
For example, if you want to play a Sherlock Holmes-type character, you could use the following "custom" background:
Seeker.
You like to seek out the truth, investigating interesting stories and solving perplexing puzzles. You often sneak into places you shouldn't have, and have a knack for getting in trouble. Fortunately, you also have a knack for making interesting friends and allies.
Skill Proficiencies: Investigation, Insight
Tool Proficiencies: Disguise kit, thieves' tools
Equipment: A magnifying glass, a notebook, ink and ink pen, dark common clothes, a pouch containing 15 gp.
You have a knack for knowing those in the know. If there is a piece of information you need but cannot find, or need access to specialized equipment or expertise, you have a friend, ally, or even a reluctant rival who is capable of providing you with what you need in exchange for a favor.
Interestingly, a peculiar thought recently occurred to me:
What if 5E's chassis is so elegant and streamlined that creating brand new content is actually less work than assembling the necessary pieces to build a complex/unique Pathfinder character?
I mean, I recently made a character for a 5E PbP whose backstory involved traveling the world to see new places and experience new cultures. He's a conversion of a Pathfinder character for another campaign that I ended up not joining. Now, for the Pathfinder version, I spent time weighing the difference between using the World Traveler human race trait, the Friend in Every Town social trait, the Cosmopolitan feat, and so forth. I went looking through pages of equipment/gear tables to find items that could represent souvenirs of his travels, and I recorded their prices and weights and so forth.
I spent a good deal of time sorting through the particulars.
Then when I went to convert him to 5E, he needed a "background", and I noticed that there's no "traveler" background; the closest is Outlander, but that's very "roughing it in the wilds", which is not at all what I was going for. So with the GM's permission, I created a custom background. I picked a combination of four tools/skills/languages, gave him two flavorful items (without having to look up stats for them!), and gave him traveler's clothes and a belt pouch with 10gp.
It took me, like, five minutes.
So when I had a concept I needed to represent with my character, the work it took to find/sort/apply Pathfinder's existing tools actually exceeded the amount of work it took to just invent something appropriate for 5E.
What if that applies to more than just backgrounds?
What if it's more work to find and assemble the traits, feats, archetypes, class levels, and magic items to embody a concept in Pathfinder than it is to make up a new path (or even class!) in 5E?
And here's the REAL kicker:
What if making stuff up to realize your concept in 5E will consistently produce more well-balanced characters than assembling the necessary pieces for a Pathfinder character?Less work and more balanced to create new concepts in 5E than to assemble builds in Pathfinder... That might have an effect on the "5E is too constricting" topic, eh?
I totally agree. (I wasn't as eloquent, but I made essentially this exact argument to the "I'm running out of characters I want to play" guy. As well as backgrounds, I indicated I'd be happy if he wanted to build his own feats, adjust class options, etcetera). However, I think there's a mindset which has arisen from the 3.5/PF era along the lines of "you can only do what the rules explicitly say" - 5E is a little uncomfortable for people with that mindset I think, so it would be worth explicitly mentioning it ahead of time. It's similar to the point you made earlier about evaluating one snippet of 5E rules as if it were imported to Pathfinder - you'll have more fun playing 5E with a different mindset than that you'd adopt playing Pathfinder, in my opinion.
Also, there's a real bias (at least at my table) towards "official" content vs anything else. As it is, he doesn't like it when I grant advantage/disadvantage without a black-and-white ruling in a rulebook saying that's how it should be - it just seems arbitrary to him, in place of tables of situational modifiers.
Our biggest disagreement came with the lucky feat (I think - the one where you can add a d20 to the roll and take the highest). There was debate about how it interacted with disadvantage and the D&D rules team made what I consider to be an incorrect ruling (that if you have disadvantage you add your luck die, roll all three and take the highest). This means you're better off having disadvantage than not - so if you plan on using your lucky feature to influence a roll, you should first close your eyes or do something else which grants disadvantage - leading to ludicrous actions, in my view.
He was really quite cross that I'd dare to say the designers were mistaken.
Again, this sounds like more of the same. Dex-based saves are prevalent but strength-based saves are not. =/
Whilst it's true that three are more common than the other three, there's still quite a lot of monsters who have strength saves built in to their attacks (to avoid being knocked prone, for example - which can be quite a big deal in 5E).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Going a little deeper, STR-based characters have a slight advantage in being able to (typically) use heavier armor, resulting in slightly higher AC than what DEX characters can achieve. Additionally, they're generally able to either use a two-handed weapon for higher damage or add a shield for +2 AC, while DEX PCs are stuck with one-handed weapons and often aren't proficient with shields. But on the other hand, DEX-based PCs will have higher initiative and better saves (more on that later).This sounds like the same stance 3.5/PF has. I was hoping for something better than “strong characters wear more armor”. If dex is allowed to compete with strength is melee I’d like to see strength be able to compete with dex when it comes to AC. So strength’s only advantage is 1) Wearing heavier armor and 2) Doing more damage in melee by using two-handed weapons? What if you’re a strength-based character that uses one-handed weapons but not a shield? Are you just inherently worse? On top of that dex-based characters get better initiative and saves? Ouch.
First, it sounds like you think you need a shield for your STR dude to have higher AC than your DEX dude, but you don't. It's just a matter of the size of the margin. The best light armor plus the maximum possible DEX score gives you an AC of 17. Simply wearing full plate puts you at 18. In short, being a light-armor-plus-DEX guy puts you at the bottom tier for AC (except for wizards, etc).
Second, every character has two hands. If you choose not to use one of them for anything at all, then yes, you're going to be "worse" than someone who uses both hands (whether that's for a 2H weapon, to dual-wield, or to use a shield). Even so, the difference is not huge, so if your concept is one of an "open-hand style" fencer or something, you'll be less than perfect, but still very capable. You won't be "gimped" by making a choice like that. 5E is much more forgiving of less-powerful choices than Pathfinder is. Your STR-based duelist is likely to be better in 5E than in Pathfinder.
Third, it's been my experience that higher initiative isn't nearly as big a deal as it is in Pathfinder. Partly, this is because Bounded Accuracy isn't just limited to attacks and saves: you don't have Pathfinder's ability to stack up a +18 pile of initiative bonuses. You have your DEX bonus, which unlike Pathfinder, caps at +5. Meanwhile, combat is less "rocket-tag" than it is in Pathfinder (at least in what I've seen so far), so winning initiative doesn't create the "nobody else gets to act" situation that Pathfinder's high-level combats sometimes produce.
Meanwhile, with regard to DEX saves, remember again that 5E caps your stats at 20. So the difference between a DEX-based character's DEX save and that of a STR-based character is going to be a few points, and that's all.
So "better initiative and saves" only applies to a narrow band of numbers. It's an advantage, but not one that's so big as to really tip the scales between DEX and STR.
Again, this sounds like more of the same. Dex-based saves are prevalent but strength-based saves are not. =/
In Pathfinder, there's literally no such thing as STR saves. 5E at least has them. They have a legitimate presence in the game.
My assessment would be that STR and DEX are far more balanced against each other in 5E than in Pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
... but i use feats, and human alternate abilities, so, i took polearm master and fighter polearm archetype, at lvl 4 i took centinel feat and the game broke....I've played a sentinel/pole arm specialist. In what way did the game break? Did you remember that you're only allowed one opportunity attack per turn?
Now that I actually have the feats in front of me, I don't see what he's talking about either.
Polearm Master lets him follow up an Attack Action with a weaker attack as a bonus action. He might misunderstand "Attack Action" and think it includes opportunity attacks, and/or he might be making the very common mistake of not realizing you only get one bonus action per turn.
Polearm Master also lets him take AoO's when baddies enter his reach instead of just when they leave. Seems fine.
Sentinel lets him end the movement of anybody that his AoO's hit. Maybe he misunderstands the duration of that effect, and/or thinks it works on all his attacks?
This has a fun combo with Polearm Master in that somebody moving up to him eats an AoO and, if he hits, their movement ends. Seems cool, but remembering there's only one reaction per round, I have a hard time believing this broke the game. All it takes is for two enemies to approach him in the same round and one of the is guaranteed to reach him and attack (both if his AoO misses). I don't see the issue.
Sentinel also lets him ignore adjacent enemies' Disengage protection, which seems interesting but ultimately not that strong.
Finally, it lets him smack adjacent enemies who attack his allies. But that's still coming from the single reaction per round that he's trying to use with Polearm Master.
Yeah, I think he's probably got multiple misunderstandings that are the root of his issue.
This has a fun combo with Polearm Master in that somebody moving up to him eats an AoO and, if he hits, their movement ends. Seems cool, but remembering there's only one reaction per round, I have a hard time believing this broke the game. All it takes is for two enemies to approach him in the same round and one of the is guaranteed to reach him and attack (both if his AoO misses). I don't see the issue.
My guess is this is the bit that was seen as broken.
When I played it we had one situation with a BBEG who had no ranged attacks. I managed to hold him off for several rounds whilst the party wiped him out from behind me. (He got through as soon as I missed my AOO, of course).
Most of the time though, it was just a cool battelfield control power where I could tie up one of our opponents.
In passing though, I do think 5E works best with lots of opponents rather than a single, amped-up baddie. If the DM was throwing lots of single creature encounters at them it would make the sentinel/polearm fighter seem that much more powerful.
Most of the time though, it was just a cool battelfield control power where I could tie up one of our opponents.l.
This comes from thinking like a pathfinder player instead of a 5e player. As soon as you give a martial character battlefield control, it becomes broken.
I do think 5E works best with lots of opponentsLike half a dozen giant poisonous snakes? Or 17 skeletons? ;)
Indeed. Or a horde of rampaging goblins storming a wooden townhall with torches and alchemist's fire.. :o
I converted Curse of the Crimson Throne over to 5E and found myself forgetting this realisation towards books 5 and 6. As a consequence, I kept putting the party up against one or two enemies and had to really boost their hit points and defences just to keep them alive. Which also meant high level combats ground to a halt and took ages.
When I remembered to convert more carefully instead of just one-for-one substitutions, we had some awesome battles with 2 or 3 PCs vs 40 high-but-not-extreme level baddies. Those remained dynamic, threatening and interesting, no matter how long they lasted.
I totally agree. (I wasn't as eloquent, but I made essentially this exact argument to the "I'm running out of characters I want to play" guy. As well as backgrounds, I indicated I'd be happy if he wanted to build his own feats, adjust class options, etcetera). However, I think there's a mindset which has arisen from the 3.5/PF era along the lines of "you can only do what the rules explicitly say" - 5E is a little uncomfortable for people with that mindset I think, so it would be worth explicitly mentioning it ahead of time. It's similar to the point you made earlier about evaluating one snippet of 5E rules as if it were imported to Pathfinder - you'll have more fun playing 5E with a different mindset than that you'd adopt playing Pathfinder, in my opinion.
I would go so far as to say that is an unhealthy attitude to be playing ANY pen & paper RPG with. The rules exist to serve the narrative and arent the be-all-end-all of the game mechanics. There are dungeoncrawler board games for play like that (Like Descent or Talisman). An RPG has a gamemaster for a reason, and it's silly to cling too close to the rules. For example when a player comes up with a creative move that is not covered by the rules like "I spray the drink in my mouth in his face before I attack" or "I cut the rope holding the chandelier hanging above him", the response shouldn't be "You can't do that, it's not in the rules." It should be "Good thinking, make your next attack with advantage/against his flat footed AC", or "Alright [rolls dex/reflex save], the heavy chandelier crashes down on his head dealing [rolls a couple d6's] 14 damage and knocking him prone."
It's no wonder so many people complain about combat being dull when playing a martial, if all they ever get to do is only what's explicitly in the rules.
I totally agree. (I wasn't as eloquent, but I made essentially this exact argument to the "I'm running out of characters I want to play" guy. As well as backgrounds, I indicated I'd be happy if he wanted to build his own feats, adjust class options, etcetera). However, I think there's a mindset which has arisen from the 3.5/PF era along the lines of "you can only do what the rules explicitly say" - 5E is a little uncomfortable for people with that mindset I think, so it would be worth explicitly mentioning it ahead of time. It's similar to the point you made earlier about evaluating one snippet of 5E rules as if it were imported to Pathfinder - you'll have more fun playing 5E with a different mindset than that you'd adopt playing Pathfinder, in my opinion.I would go so far as to say that is an unhealthy attitude to be playing ANY pen & paper RPG with. The rules exist to serve the narrative and arent the be-all-end-all of the game mechanics. There are dungeoncrawler board games for play like that (Like Descent or Talisman). An RPG has a gamemaster for a reason, and it's silly to cling too close to the rules. For example when a player comes up with a creative move that is not covered by the rules like "I spray the drink in my mouth in his face before I attack" or "I cut the rope holding the chandelier hanging above him", the response shouldn't be "You can't do that, it's not in the rules." It should be "Good thinking, make your next attack with advantage/against his flat footed AC", or "Alright [rolls dex/reflex save], the heavy chandelier crashes down on his head dealing [rolls a couple d6's] 14 damage and knocking him prone."
It's no wonder so many people complain about combat being dull when playing a martial, if all they ever get to do is only what's explicitly in the rules.
I wouldn't say it's unhealthy. Different people like different things - I think my friend feels that playing "by the book" is important for its own sake. There have even been times when he's acknowledged that deviating from the written rules is more fun - yet argues we should stick to them as a kind of general principle.
I think his mindset works okay in a ruleset which is relatively prescriptive. But ultimately, when he plays a game with more quick-and-dirty mechanics, I think he would enjoy himself more if he let go and just remembered he's operating outside his comfort zone.
I do think 5E works best with lots of opponentsLike half a dozen giant poisonous snakes? Or 17 skeletons? ;)Indeed. Or a horde of rampaging goblins storming a wooden townhall with torches and alchemist's fire.. :o
I converted Curse of the Crimson Throne over to 5E and found myself forgetting this realisation towards books 5 and 6. As a consequence, I kept putting the party up against one or two enemies and had to really boost their hit points and defences just to keep them alive. Which also meant high level combats ground to a halt and took ages.
When I remembered to convert more carefully instead of just one-for-one substitutions, we had some awesome battles with 2 or 3 PCs vs 40 high-but-not-extreme level baddies. Those remained dynamic, threatening and interesting, no matter how long they lasted.
It's wortth remembering that in Pathfinder a CR 1 creature is considered roughly equal to one Level 1 PC. In 5e a CR 1 creature is considered roughly equal to a party of four level 1 PCs.
I've been watching a lot of Critical Role, which is a livestream 5e campaign and there it seemed even encounters against single enemies to be fair most of those enemies appear to be designed as Bosses anyway. Which brings me to legendary and lair actions. A nice way to tip the Action economy towards the monster a little.
Yeah, I've been working on making a bunch of conversions of classes and archetypes from PF to 5E and it's been super easy!
Do you happen to have online writeups of any of your works? It's always nice to see some material.
I know of the aforementioned Critical Role's Gunslkionger conversion into a fighter archetype already which looked nice.
This sounds a lot like that scene in "A Few Good Men" where the Official Handbook of Rules and Regulations doesn't list where the Chow Hall is. :-P
And speaking about different kinds of saving throws, we actually made Intelligence saving throws last night in our RotRL adaptation.
Legendary Actions and Lair Actions can really help the action economy of single monsters against a party of PCs. Throw in a couple minions, and it gets really interesting.
I think you need the minions (I'm talking levels 15-20 now). I began granting all monsters maximum hit points and even in their lairs, the solo monsters which were supposed to be level-appropriate (as per the DMG guidelines) were a real walkover.
The players I had (who nearly always build for damage to the exclusion of practically everything else) were generating obscene levels of damage quite routinely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find PCs crush their CR.
When I place PCs vs a proper CR they cake walk it. I noticed their tactics were very subpar so I built a team of a level lower and one less character classes for them to fight and they were massacred.
Also the balance between monsters is silly. Low CR monsters with pack tactics hitting for 2d6 on advantage own much larger dc monsters with a touch better to hit without pack tactics doing about as much damage,
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree. (I wasn't as eloquent, but I made essentially this exact argument to the "I'm running out of characters I want to play" guy. As well as backgrounds, I indicated I'd be happy if he wanted to build his own feats, adjust class options, etcetera). However, I think there's a mindset which has arisen from the 3.5/PF era along the lines of "you can only do what the rules explicitly say" - 5E is a little uncomfortable for people with that mindset I think, so it would be worth explicitly mentioning it ahead of time. It's similar to the point you made earlier about evaluating one snippet of 5E rules as if it were imported to Pathfinder - you'll have more fun playing 5E with a different mindset than that you'd adopt playing Pathfinder, in my opinion.I would go so far as to say that is an unhealthy attitude to be playing ANY pen & paper RPG with. The rules exist to serve the narrative and arent the be-all-end-all of the game mechanics. There are dungeoncrawler board games for play like that (Like Descent or Talisman). An RPG has a gamemaster for a reason, and it's silly to cling too close to the rules. For example when a player comes up with a creative move that is not covered by the rules like "I spray the drink in my mouth in his face before I attack" or "I cut the rope holding the chandelier hanging above him", the response shouldn't be "You can't do that, it's not in the rules." It should be "Good thinking, make your next attack with advantage/against his flat footed AC", or "Alright [rolls dex/reflex save], the heavy chandelier crashes down on his head dealing [rolls a couple d6's] 14 damage and knocking him prone."
It's no wonder so many people complain about combat being dull when playing a martial, if all they ever get to do is only what's explicitly in the rules.
It's not an unhealthy mindset; in fact, it's an outgrowth of a sense of fairness.
Imagine you were trying out a new game/group/whatever, and the RPG you were going to be using had no magic; it was all about martial prowess and skill and cunning and such. So you make some kind of nonmagical explorer, then you get a couple of sessions in and somebody says, "Hey, I thought it would be cool if my character was haunted by some little ghostly presence from Place X we visited that irritates him but also gives him magical powers." The GM agrees that it sounds like a fun concept and so, reaching outside the rules, he makes up some stats for eye lasers and invisibility for just that one player.
Had you known that options like that were on the table, you might have made your character differently. Doesn't that feel a bit unfair?
That's what's going on with the mindset of "only what's in the rules": the rules let everybody have equal opportunity to know what's available and decide how best to enable fun with their character choices. It helps prevent moments where you're saying "What?! If I'd known we could do THAT..."
So the mindset of "If it's not in the rules, you can't do it" is not unhealthy; it's either a strong sense of fairness, or defense against poor adjudication skills (which itself can be from a sense of fairness; i.e., "I don't want to accidentally do to my players what's been done to me").
*snip**snip*Interestingly, a peculiar thought recently occurred to me:
What if 5E's chassis is so elegant and streamlined that creating brand new content is actually less work than assembling the necessary pieces to build a complex/unique Pathfinder character?*snip*
James casts Minor Tangent!
This exact thing.I have homebrewed several things from earlier editions into 5e with almost no trouble.
Even full classes.
Not to mention, I feel way more capable of free-running my dungeons and stuff off-the-cuff in 5e MUCH MORE than in 3.P.
I don't quite know why this is, but it might have something to do with the bounded accuracy aspect of 5e.
It's not an unhealthy mindset; in fact, it's an outgrowth of a sense of fairness.Imagine you were trying out a new game/group/whatever, and the RPG you were...
Yes and no. I wasn't talking about permanent character options especially not to such an extreme degree, I'm talking about small adjustments that allow players to take actions that aren't covered in the rules but should be reasonably achievable by the character without having any special abilities. Such as my examples, of using the environment to your advantage or spraying the opponent's face with a mouthful of ale.
That's really interesting Kalshane. I will have to try that.
I ran an adventure at level 3 so the players could try out e feel of a few characters and learn the rules. It is acting as a prologue to the campaign with the players now rolling new 1st level characters. I will probably use the free feat as a reward for completing their character background and sending me their character sheets on time.
Paladins seem a bit op and the adding of Cha to saves seems likely to break the whole bounded accuracy of saves.
But paladins are one of the more MAD classes. Of course, the only paladin I've seen in play was a dragonborn grappler who never used his sword.
Paladins are great against big bads as they can burn spells into damage. Not so good versus hordes. Mix it up so all can shine
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I tried to compile lists of each system's upsides. Now I want to remind everyone that the mods don't like Edition warring, and neither do I want it here, I just want to create a list to help me and my players decide on the system we want to use.
- 5e Pros
- simpler rules, faster combat rounds since there is less math and floating modifiers, animal companions only act if the owner uses their action for it.
- easier character generation and level ups.
- lower bonuses to attacks, saves, skills etc at high levels making unproficient characters' attempts at skills and saves still realistic to succeed at high levels unless even a proficient character has a difficult time. Also meaning that low level enemies are still able to deal damage to high level players.
- there are no skills that are unusable without training/proficiency.
- each class has two or more integral specializations to choose from.
- non-casters are more mobile because they can still make use of their full attack potential without using a full round action.
- fewer magic items, making them more of a special event to find rather than an everyday necessity that constatly gets replaced with marginally better versions.
- classes are better balanced, everyone has a chance to shine in combat
- magic is less omnipotent and skills become more useful, both magical and nonmagical characters can meaningfully contribute in combat throughout all levels.
- direct damage spells are viable in comparison to utility and status effect spells
- multiclassing rules work better, good multiclassing system compensates for small number of existing classes
- PFRPG Pros
- vastly more classes, each class has a large selection of archetypes to further specialize, allowing for more character concepts to be realized mechanically.
- Skill ranks allow players to further customize how good they are at various skills, rather than just choosing whether they are proficient or not.
- Skills can be chosen completely freely independent of class.
- Vastly more races to choose from.
- More detailed "realistic" (or rather simulationist) rules.
- Larger difference between high and low attack bonuses, skills and saves, meaning high level players can plough through armies of low level enemies like badasses without encountering much of any resistance.
- Way more spells, feats and equipment to choose from.
- More monsters (and with that more chopices of familiars and animal companions).
- GM specific pros: NPC Codex, Monster Codex and 5 bestiaries means a lot less time spent building NPCs and Monsters.
Anything I missed?
FWIW, I don't think there's much less of a 'badass' feel with high level 5E - I think that's just how it appears (because we've been trained to look for stratospheric bonuses - a lot of people who've looked at 5E but haven't played it baulk at the +2 -> +6 range, as if that encapsulates all of the difference between a novice and an expert).
5E rather represents the disparity via other means - so in 5E a low level character can provide a niggling threat to a high level character (it's rare that things become 'unhittable'), but the hero can still wade through hordes of low level enemies. For example, I'd put money on a 20th level fighter defeating a squad of fifty or so town militia in a stand-up fight.
I mean sure, a high level 5e character is still a badass, dealing out and capable of tanking a lot more damage. The difference is that in PF a 10th level character likely doesn't even get hit by something low level unless that character rolls a natural 20 on their attack roll. While the high level one only misses on a 1 or perhaps a little more likely on their iteratives. While in 5e the low level enemies can still at least realistically act as anklebiters that can wear a high level PC down, and aren't completely irrelevant because they would only ever do anything at all every 20th round and even then it would be a negligible amount.
I made it as a point in favor of each system because I think it depends on personal preference.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would contest "Skills can be chosen completely freely independent of class" as being a "pro" for Pathfinder. You're actually more free to get out-of-class skills in 5E than in Pathfinder.
Characters in 5E get to pick a "background" that's completely independent of class, which grants a couple of skill (or tool) proficiencies.
A Pathfinder fighter gets to pick two skills, and although he can technically put those ranks anywhere he wants, if he wants to be functionally competent he needs to put them into class skills.
Meanwhile, a 5E fighter gets to pick two skills from his class, and then ALSO gets to pick any two skills he wants through his background (and will be fully competent with them, just as much as his class-granted skills).
Additionally, since 5E has fewer skills, getting any given number of skills represents a higher relative proportion of capability than in Pathfinder. That is, a character with four skills in 5E is more capable than a character with four skills in Pathfinder, because "four skills" is a bigger percentage of available skills in 5E than in Pathfinder.
All in all, "skills can be chosen completely freely independent of class" is only technically (rather than practically) true of Pathfinder, and is actually more true in 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded, if I was stuck with the default list of skills and the "obvious" backgrounds for a Ranger I'd never have been able to make my magical ninja character. Hell there's so many ways I could have gone to make a similar style character, it really came down to what area I wanted to focus on. I ended up with the Ranger base because of the summoning spells it gets access to, specifically Conjure Animals, and the ranged weapon attack focused spells like Lightning Arrow.
For a realistic ninja I could have gone straight Assassin Rogue, for a slightly more fantastic, but not outright magical, ninja a Way of Shadow Monk would work, heck even Fighter can work to model a more combat focused ninja and with the Eldritch Knight build can even model slightly magical ninja as well.
I mean sure, a high level 5e character is still a badass, dealing out and capable of tanking a lot more damage. The difference is that in PF a 10th level character likely doesn't even get hit by something low level unless that character rolls a natural 20 on their attack roll. While the high level one only misses on a 1 or perhaps a little more likely on their iteratives. While in 5e the low level enemies can still at least realistically act as anklebiters that can wear a high level PC down, and aren't completely irrelevant because they would only ever do anything at all every 20th round and even then it would be a negligible amount.
What I meant is that the impact of "doing a bit of damage" is different in the two systems. Functionally, there's not much difference in my view between a twentieth level PC taking on an army in either system. Yes the 5E character is going to be crossing off more hit points, but that's just an aesthetic difference (hit points mean different things in the two systems, they just look the same - 5E is designed to have many more hit point fluctuations due to bounded accuracy, however at the table that doesn't translate the way it's often perceived). It doesn't matter if a village's entire militia will do next-to-nothing to the PF fighter and mathematically grind down the 5E fighter at round sixty if he kills them all by round fifty anyway - it's just a different way of modelling essentially the same outcome.
That's especially true given the DMG optional rules - for example there's an optional rule where anyone can heal via spending hit die mid battle, there's also a cleave option in particular which allows high level PCs to wade through hordes of minions easily. It depends what style you're shooting for, but ultimately there's not the difference there first appears, in my opinion.
I would contest "Skills can be chosen completely freely independent of class" as being a "pro" for Pathfinder. You're actually more free to get out-of-class skills in 5E than in Pathfinder.
Characters in 5E get to pick a "background" that's completely independent of class, which grants a couple of skill (or tool) proficiencies.
A Pathfinder fighter gets to pick two skills, and although he can technically put those ranks anywhere he wants, if he wants to be functionally competent he needs to put them into class skills.
Meanwhile, a 5E fighter gets to pick two skills from his class, and then ALSO gets to pick any two skills he wants through his background (and will be fully competent with them, just as much as his class-granted skills).
Additionally, since 5E has fewer skills, getting any given number of skills represents a higher relative proportion of capability than in Pathfinder. That is, a character with four skills in 5E is more capable than a character with four skills in Pathfinder, because "four skills" is a bigger percentage of available skills in 5E than in Pathfinder.
All in all, "skills can be chosen completely freely independent of class" is only technically (rather than practically) true of Pathfinder, and is actually more true in 5E.
Seconded, if I was stuck with the default list of skills and the "obvious" backgrounds for a Ranger I'd never have been able to make my magical ninja character. Hell there's so many ways I could have gone to make a similar style character, it really came down to what area I wanted to focus on. I ended up with the Ranger base because of the summoning spells it gets access to, specifically Conjure Animals, and the ranged weapon attack focused spells like Lightning Arrow.
For a realistic ninja I could have gone straight Assassin Rogue, for a slightly more fantastic, but not outright magical, ninja a Way of Shadow Monk would work, heck even Fighter can work to model a more combat focused ninja and with the Eldritch Knight build can even model slightly magical ninja as well.
You guys convinced me. I'll cross it off the list for PF then.
What I meant is that the impact of "doing a bit of damage" is different in the two systems. Functionally, there's not much difference in my view between a twentieth level PC taking on an army in either system. Yes the 5E character is going to be crossing off more hit points, but that's just an aesthetic difference (hit points mean different things in the two systems, they just look the same - 5E is designed to have many more hit point fluctuations due to bounded accuracy, however at the table that doesn't translate the way it's often perceived). It doesn't matter if a village's entire militia will do next-to-nothing to the PF fighter and mathematically grind down the 5E fighter at round sixty if he kills them all by round fifty anyway - it's just a different way of modelling essentially the same outcome.
That's especially true given the DMG optional rules - for example there's an optional rule where anyone can heal via spending hit die mid battle, there's also a cleave option in particular which allows high level PCs to wade through hordes of minions easily. It depends what style you're shooting for, but ultimately there's not the difference there first appears, in my opinion.
If it's just the level 20 fighter against a horde of low level minions the difference is indeed cosmetic at best, I'm thinking more of mixing them into a high level battle, for whatever reason (maybe the big bad is sending in his foot soldiers to distract the heroes, maybe he just happens to be surrounded by a horde of servants, maybe the scene is set in a large scale battle), in such a scenario the low level minions can scratch away at the HP of the party or attempt to grapple or shove them around and generally acting as anklebiter. While in PF any such thing is much less likely to succeed. I'm just saying low level enemies are less irrelevant, not that they become a big factor.
Sure. I just don't think it's actually true (or more accurately I don't think it's turns out to be as significant a difference as it appears it's going to be), I think it's a difference people tend to think will become apparent that actually doesn't (because battles don't generally take long enough to notice the impact). This is especially true given the mix-n-match approach of rules in the DMG - the cleave rule in particular really allows the 'wade through armies' feel.
It's no big deal though. Just a different conclusion that one reaches between theory and actual play (in my experience, anyhow).
At 11th level, our party of 6 took on dozens of CR 3 yeti and several CR 9 abominable yetis in a giant battle. Granted, regular yeti aren't CR 1/4 or CR 1 minions, but it was a challenge that required us to use our big gun: The Horn of Valhalla.
I am a fan of the 5th edition baseline system. Though some things still feel a bit clunky or obviously unbalanced to me, I guess, coming from PFRPG (and earlier systems), that should not be a huge deal breaker.
There are a few options I'd like to ban, but power gamers would love. WotC probably left enough of such options in the system intentionally to appeal to a wider public (but leave me not quite content in an otherwise great system).
I like how the game plays mostly like 3rd edition, feels more like 2nd edition and has some significant contributions of 4th edition mixed in, with some hints of PF influence. It's a good game but with relatively few options it seems a delicate balance is easily broken.
The support and involvement with the game and players is well behind on PF, the developers are more distant though arguably an improvement over previous editions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
I find PF offers more ways to win a fight. The grapple rules allow you to tie someone up. The save or suck spells can end a fight as well.
In 5e the only way to win a fight is HP damage, I prefer creativity. With a good DM you can overcome this.
Simpler rules also are a detriment. My sorcerer was required to burn spells fighting a fighter tied up rolling on the ground blinded. Getting advatange and him getting disadvantage did not make up the difference. That should have been an easy fight.
AC can unbalance 5e very quickly. A dwarf caster can get crazy high ACs
5e is only short on races because it is new. They will have more soon. WOTC loves spamming races.
There are a few options I'd like to ban, but power gamers would love.
Care to elaborate on that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuffI find PF offers more ways to win a fight. The grapple rules allow you to tie someone up. The save or suck spells can end a fight as well.
I generally find the opposite to be true. While PF has a lot of options, they're hidden behind feat trees, so only someone specialized in them can use them (especially grappling). Exception: wizards and other full casters that have spells which can do anything a martial can do and often better.
In 5e the only way to win a fight is HP damage, I prefer creativity. With a good DM you can overcome this.
5e opens up options by use of imagination, which is what this game is all about. I find that there is much more creativity in my players in 5e than there ever was in PF. I had the hardest time getting my players to try new things in PF, because they felt like their characters couldn't do something unless they specifically had a feat for it. With 5e, they're so much more creative, because they're no longer restrained by specialization options that they had in PF.
By comparison of another game, I saw someone claim that 5e had zero tactical play, and I was just baffled. But they were coming from 4e where tactics was used to describe class options and monster options, rather than taking advantage of terrain, using teamwork, and exploiting weaknesses (Which in my opinion more closely resembles tactics in the real world). Even in PF I used similar tactics that I use in 5e; where tactics can make or break a combat session. It confused the heck out of me to see someone claim that a system like this didn't have tactics.
Either way though, what really matters is personal preference and gaming style. What works for me may not work for you or someone else, and if greater complexity in rules is what drives your imagination and creativity, then by all means go with the complex! Games are about enjoyment and we should be enjoying our games. :)
Simpler rules also are a detriment.
I think there's a good balance to be had somewhere. While I loved playing PF, as more books came out the more rules there were, with often contradicting rules (especially combined with erratas that made casters more powerful and martials less). I love the simpler rules in 5e, but whether the rules are complex or simple isn't a detriment or advantage one way or another, it's just different play styles.
[quote{My sorcerer was required to burn spells fighting a fighter tied up rolling on the ground blinded. Getting advatange and him getting disadvantage did not make up the difference. That should have been an easy fight.
I feel that this is a perfect example of what I was talking about above; where a system of complex rules makes us feel like we're constrained to the rules and won't venture outside of them using imagination and creativity. Why did you restrict yourself to what was written on your character sheet? Why didn't you try things available to all characters? A bad guy blinded and tied up; no need to even fight anymore! Why waste spells? If he's getting loose, tie him up more. If he has weapons, have people sit on him to take it away. If he's covered in armor, grab a knife and cut the armor straps loose (and who cares if you accidentally cut him in the process). And this doesn't even get into the question of why we're trying to kill an opponent that's already subdued. Let's use our imagination to solve the problem rather than the abilities listed on a piece of paper!
Now, if that's not how it went down, I apologize for making the assumption. But this is the exact same situation I often found my own players succumbing to - they'd only do what their character sheets said they could do, rather than trying to think outside the page.
AC can unbalance 5e very quickly. A dwarf caster can get crazy high ACs
I'm really curious about this. What was the AC and how did it get to that point? What class was the dwarf? What level was the dwarf and the party?
Even with high AC, there is never a situation where the only option is straight up combat. In my Out of the Abyss campaign...
An attitude that you must fight to overcome problems will not allow my players to win in situations like that. They must think of other solutions. Maybe diplomacy or lying their way out, maybe running. Maybe hiding. Maybe luring the bad guy into a trap (a literal trap or even just into a room with a ton of your allies). Maybe distracting the bad guy with an even bigger threat so you can escape.
If you're facing an opponent with insanely high AC, why are you facing him at his strongest point? Why target AC at all? Go with spells or make up something that will exploit his weaknesses. Maybe a pit trap with water will defeat someone covered in armor. Maybe target a weak saving throw. Maybe disarm and surround him so he can't even do anything. Get anti magic involved to eliminate his spells. There are so many options! We just have to use our imagination to think of something other than "hit it with my sword" or "hit it with my spell."
There are a ton of options to use if we just think outside of the character sheet, which opens up a ton of options in 5e - options that are often hidden behind feats in PF.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find PF offers more ways to win a fight.
I would contest that.
The grapple rules allow you to tie someone up.
No, the (Pathfinder) grapple rules prevent you from tying someone up unless you pay through the nose for the privilege. The 5E rules allow you to tie someone up.
The save or suck spells can end a fight as well.
That's a bug, not a feature.
In 5e the only way to win a fight is HP damage, I prefer creativity.
Right, because the aforementioned "save or lose" is "creative"?
My sorcerer was required to burn spells fighting a fighter tied up rolling on the ground blinded.
No he wasn't. I guarantee it.
Getting advatange and him getting disadvantage did not make up the difference.
Good thing that's not all that happens when someone is tied up.
That should have been an easy fight.
And would have been, if run correctly.
AC can unbalance 5e very quickly.
Not unless you invent homebrew ways to pushing it outside the designed levels of bounded accuracy.
A dwarf caster can get crazy high ACs
I bet you've misunderstood something about how AC works in 5E. I see that a lot, actually.
I play a dwarf cleric with a relatively huge AC (22 @ 11th level--finally got magic armor and shield!), but it is balanced by a really low Dexterity save (-1 from my 8 Dex) and the fact I can generally only make 1 attack per round (2 with spiritual weapon).
Also, attacking isn't my role, anyways. I'm a force multiplier. I usually have bless cast, so I'm helping my allies' attacks and saves. I recently got raised from the dead by a demon, so I'm exploring my dark side by using debuffs such as bestow curse and contagion. Rotting Flesh from contagion is super potent when combined with a low Portent roll from the diviner wizard. I'm also one of the tougher PCs (the Resilience (Constitution) feat has been a lifesaver!), so I'm usually in front (also so I can stuff--dwarves are short!) where I can absorb any surprise damage.
I also like to use unusual tactics, like pushing an opponent off a really tall tower. Even though I don't have proficiency in Athletics, I can use the Shove action pretty well when I have a guidance up. And now especially that I have a Belt of Giant's Strength. :-P
At low levels, when my 20 AC from full plate and shield was pretty amazing, I would often provoke opportunity attacks on purpose so my squishier companions wouldn't. This barely ever killed me. :-P
So there are lots of options in combat, especially if you use some of the variant rules in the DMG, like climbing on a larger creature, disarming opponents, etc. Even the PH has a box describing how to use contests in combat for unusual actions.
There are a few options I'd like to ban, but power gamers would love.Care to elaborate on that?
moon druid / polymorph, warlock / sorcerer (hex / eldritch blast), multi class cleric (heavy armor), bard (poaching some high value specialty spells from other classes), the contagion spell, archery is a bit too powerful for my tastes.
Not an extensive list, I haven't played much recently and memory is a bit fuzzy on the details.
I am not saying they are terrible by many standards but I do not like milking the system for benefits. Something other people might enjoy much more.
I'm confused on how any of those are "milking the system for power gaming" or over-powered at all.
Heck, there are clerics who start with heavy armor proficiency, and you can pick it up with a single feat if you don't. How is multiclassing simply to gain heavy armor proficiency even a good idea, much less power gaming?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a Bard in the first campaign of D&D 5 (the one with dragons). From lvl 1 to 12. Best character in my life gameplay-wise in a d20 system. Best Bard by faaaaaaar. So much possibilities in combat or outside during social encounter and exploration.
The system is simpler, and most importantly way much more balanced. I know people will disagree but when you don't play with all the books and you put a stop on power gamer about multiclassing (you know that monk/druid/witch who has no sense at all roleplay wise or that orc barbarian/ragechimist) D&D 5 is more balanced.
When we played Serpent's Skulls I played a Varana Monk. I had basically a climb speed and can almost fly between trees with jumps. My friend got a Rogue Elfe with no archetype who throws daggers... He selt useless.
In D&D 5 I played a Drow Bard, my friend a Noble Human Warrior. We were both so usefull. Nice feeling.
But I don't hate Pathfinder. I think we need more class is D&D 5. And of course I still play in Golarion, wonderfull world and roleplay possibilites. And yes I want a Alchemist class in D&D 5 and a decent and funnier Ranger. Yes sometimes (as a DM) I would prefer more information about a few rules. BUT when you play, I prefer D&D 5, always.
I'm confused on how any of those are "milking the system for power gaming" or over-powered at all.
Heck, there are clerics who start with heavy armor proficiency, and you can pick it up with a single feat if you don't. How is multiclassing simply to gain heavy armor proficiency even a good idea, much less power gaming?
Not necessarily overpowered depending on your baseline, but promoting certain combinations to milk the system to get results.
A caster multi-classing into fighter will not get heavy armor proficiency, but multi-classing into a cleric can. Which feels like awkward design, logically the fighter would be the arms and armor expert but you'd be better off multi-classing into cleric if you want a heavily armored mage character.
Just small things that do not quite feel right or balanced to me, but are perfectly acceptable for people that focus on building effective characters primarily.
The only multiclassing I've seen was someone trying to make an old school fighter/thief/magic-user by multiclassing fighter/rogue/wizard, possibly/probably going eldritch knight/arcane trickster/evoker. But he was a bit overwhelmed with the number of bonus action options he had (two-weapon fighting, cunning action, second wind, etc.). He eventually re-built his character as an eldritch knight and is much happier.