Flaws: bugs, you can bug a tarrasque at lvl 1 with two feats.You really can't. You're going to die at round one - just like you should (leaving aside the fact that you can't have two feats at level one).sure, you can have 2 feats at lvl 4th your right.
So, tarrasque will get bugged in her first round with a single human fighter polearm, with centinel and polearm master.
Nah, he really won't. Those feats don't work as effectively as you think they do. That "sentinel/polearm master is broken" claim was one of the "flaws" with the system theorycrafters came up with very early in their analysis - it turns out it just isn't an actual problem. As soon as you miss (quite likely) your 'system breaking exploit' is meaningless.
All those two feats achieve is to every now and again deprive a single enemy (with no ranged attacks and no alternate paths to targets) one round's worth of actions. It's not as great as it looks on paper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tarrasque thing is a silly example anyway (since it has reach, so can stop ten feat away from the fighter, eat him, then continue). It's also immune to non-magic weapons. Plus it gets a legendary action to move at the end of other creatures turns (when the fighter no longer has reactions to stop it).
It was an early attempt to discover a flaw in 5E that just never really worked the way people thought it did.
I've played a sentinel/polearm master and you do get occasional chances to deprive opponents of an attack for a round - but it's quite intermittent and nowhere near gamebreaking, in my opinion. (Perhaps if your encounters are all with single creatures without ranged attacks in confined spaces - in that specific situation it would be very powerful).
If the tarrasque wins initiative, the fighter dies without landing a single blow. If the fighter wins initiative, the tarrasque's AC of 25 means the fighter still most likely dies without landing a single blow. Either way, it's a one round fight.
It's possible the fighter will land a hit as the tarrasque moves to within ten feet (he gets on opportunity attack at that point). He'll be dead shortly thereafter though. If the fighter wins initiative, he might get three hits in if he's very lucky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure - as ever, these hypotheticals rely on a bunch of unstated assumptions. It's a silly example. It's like the 'villages don't need dragonslayers in 5E' example. There was a spate of them when the game released but the analysis never has anything to do with how the game actually works in practice (or was just based on a flat out misinterpretation).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things that make this hobby less fun: people who theorycraft examples of play, rather than actually play and report on the findings of their play...
Just sayin' ;-)
Things that make this hobby less fun: people who theorycraft examples of play, rather than actually play and report on the findings of their play...
Just sayin' ;-)
I think it makes it fun for the theory crafters (and I find I get value from that kind of analysis, when it's done well).
It just happens that in this specific case there were a flurry of them at 5E's launch that weren't very thorough. I suspect there were some who were only looking for problems and who stopped looking as soon as they thought they found one and "rushed to print" a little too early, without really understanding the system.
Regarding simulating a world with the skill system:
The basis of the skill system is --
1) State your action
2) The DM determines how to resolve it (in 3.x/PF or 4e the skill rules determine how to resolve it):
2a) If the result is not in doubt then it auto-fails or auto-succeeds.
2b) If the result is in doubt then make a roll - with 3 types: normal, advantage, and disadvantage.
3) Resolved
4) Drink
So for the hypothetical Archery contest it could go any number of ways depending on how the DM determines.
Master vs. Newb? Master wins - done. Or maybe roll off with advantage to the Master.
Arm wrestling? Higher strength wins - done.
I also use this method in combat for corner cases (such as extreme cases of disadvantage or advantage stacking).
i.e. Blind, engaged in melee, poisoned commoners shooting at long range - auto-fail.
i.e. Attacking an unconsious, prone, restrained target out of 'combat' - auto-success.
Basically any situation where the dice may give a result against "common sense" the arbiter just skips the dice. By RAW.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The basis of the skill system is --
1) State your action
2) The DM determines how to resolve it (in 3.x/PF or 4e the skill rules determine how to resolve it):
2a) If the result is not in doubt then it auto-fails or auto-succeeds.
2b) If the result is in doubt then make a roll - with 3 types: normal, advantage, and disadvantage.
3) Resolved
4) Drink.....
Basically any situation where the dice may give a result against "common sense" the arbiter just skips the dice. By RAW.
I don't remember reading this. For reasons not limited to this discussion, could you point me to what part of the 5E rules you got this from? I'm very interested in re-reading it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember reading this. For reasons not limited to this discussion, could you point me to what part of the 5E rules you got this from? I'm very interested in re-reading it.The basis of the skill system is --
1) State your action
2) The DM determines how to resolve it (in 3.x/PF or 4e the skill rules determine how to resolve it):
2a) If the result is not in doubt then it auto-fails or auto-succeeds.
2b) If the result is in doubt then make a roll - with 3 types: normal, advantage, and disadvantage.
3) Resolved
4) Drink.....
Basically any situation where the dice may give a result against "common sense" the arbiter just skips the dice. By RAW.
I think Jody is referring to both How to Play in the Introduction ( "1. The DM describes the environment; 2. The players describe what they want to do; 3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions") and Ability Checks in Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores ("The Dm calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the result.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing I personally got hung up on was the flattened math: if a 1st-level fighter and a 20th level fighter both fire the same bow at the same target 20 times each, the 20th-level fighter is only going to hit a few more times than the 1st-level fighter, and that bugged me to think about.That's... Not even close really.
Barring the fact that the 20th level fighter is going to shoot those 20 arrows in 3-5 rounds, and the fact that they had like 7 ability bumps and probably have a 20 Dex...
I can tell you from direct experience that a 1st level 5e archer is dealing out about 5-8points of damage every other round, whereas by 11th they'll be doing 30-100pts a round!
I mean I guess when looked at as static math it might look like that, but very little of a 5E characters combat potential is to be found in the basic numbers. There's a whole lot more going on than that.
I was imagining a shooting range, with someone hosting a contest where they each get the same number of shots (wouldn't have to be 20; I just picked that number because d20) from the same bow and see who hits the target more. The consistency with which the 20th-level archer would actually win that contest is... less than I would desire.
But when I push from my mind all these contrived archery tests and play the game, I can focus on how the high-level fighter is kicking ass ten ways from Tuesday. :)
The problem here is maybe that you're trying to use 5e's combat rules to resolve what is actually a contest. The combat rules are set up to deal damage and kill things, not determine who "hits the target more". No ones really going to miss the target that often. You want to determine who hits it better than the other guy.
For your archery contest, you would use the ability/skill contest rules from 5e. So roughly d20+5 vs d20+11, higher total wins. I'm no mathematician, but my money would be on the 20th level guy winning more often and reliably.
TL;DR: combat rules determine archer vs target. Ability contest rules determine archer vs. archer :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember reading this. For reasons not limited to this discussion, could you point me to what part of the 5E rules you got this from? I'm very interested in re-reading it.The basis of the skill system is --
1) State your action
2) The DM determines how to resolve it (in 3.x/PF or 4e the skill rules determine how to resolve it):
2a) If the result is not in doubt then it auto-fails or auto-succeeds.
2b) If the result is in doubt then make a roll - with 3 types: normal, advantage, and disadvantage.
3) Resolved
4) Drink.....
Basically any situation where the dice may give a result against "common sense" the arbiter just skips the dice. By RAW.
In addition to the 'How to Play' section the clearest statement is DMG p236-37 under "The Role of the Dice".
The options being: 1) The dice decide - 'Rolling with It' (3.x/4e), 2) The DM decides - 'Ignoring the Dice' (probably most like OD&D and AD&D), and 3) Mixing the Two - 'The Middle Ground'.
My above methodology most closely matches the third option. Not to say that the 'Roll for it' method can't work, but if you don't like how it works then you have other options within 'The Rules'.
Drink.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The last three posts are exactly why I enjoy 5E over Pathfinder as a ruleset.
|
I've definitely enjoyed my time with 5E, I was skeptical at first but I wanted to plunge right in and so far I've found it incredibly enjoyable, the fact that it is so simple and free-form I love. I occasionally have to look at the rule book as a player to double check something, usually combat based but otherwise things feel less bogged down than in Pathfinder.
I still really enjoy Pathfinder, but I also am having a ton of fun in the 5E game I'm in right now!
I've switched to 5E as well. I'm a pretty crunchy guy, and was on the fence about 5E. Some of the playtest packets left me kinda shaking my head, others seemed good.
When 5E was released, I put the RotRL campaign I was GM'ing locally for 5 fairly newish players on hold (one of them had just had a child, so timing was good for a break as well). I then spent 2 months running the excellent LMoP campaign from the Starter Set. They wiped in the final dungeon due to a couple of really bad decisions, but afterwards I asked for input since I was still on the fence, mainly because using 5E rules meant I'd have to convert RotRL, since the Hoard of the Dragon Queen AP looked like crap. All 4 remaining players strongly preferred 5E - there wasn't any hint of wanting to go back to Pathfinder rules. Only (mild) complaint was the lack of an alchemist, or method of simulating one (in retrospect, I think warlock could be re-fluffed to be close enough).
A year and a bit later, and we've been running 5E exclusively. I'll play Pathfinder online if I see a good campaign on Roll20 (GM > story >>> rules IMO), but the fiddly bits and trying to calculate stacking/non-stacking buffs leave me exasperated, as do the bizarre landscape of classes and races in vogue nowadays.
I do really miss Paizo's APs though - everything Wizards has released so far has fallen far short of the adventure standards set by Paizo. I really, really wish Paizo would decide to do an AP for 5E, but I can understand if that notion gets met with a giant raspberry given Wizards past behavior.
Hey, Ackbladder, I posted a 5E conversion of the Alchemist on this board. I even used the warlock skeleton as the template for it, with Discoveries replacing Invocations.
|
Ackbladder, there are a lot of exciting prospects for adventures right now. You should check out, for instance, "What Lies Beyond Reason". It promises to be fun.
There are a few out there that are attempting something "AP-esque", though I'm struggling to think of them right now. I know that Legendary Planet is going to be one of them, though that is more sci-fi fantasy.
All that I've read across various threads makes me sad. Sad because it really makes me want to go and buy the 5e Player's Guide, DMG, and Bestiary, and I'm afraid when I do that I'll give up on Pathfinder altogether, and there goes about 6+ years of investment.
Still debating, but at this point I'm seriously leaning towards switching my home campaign to 5e ruleset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our group uses 5E mechanics and PF fluff, like APs and Golarion history and cosmology.
I gave all my 3.P rules and setting book to an organisation similar to YMCA in my neighborhood, so the kids get a chance to learn playing D&D and Pathfinder at a low cost. I kept only the APs that I bought.
Yes that might be sad.
Imagine looking at the bookcase in your dinning room and seeing the 1st edition books, next to the second edition books, next to the 3rd edition, the 3.5 edition, and 4th edition books, and then finally, on the end of the shelf, after all these, the Pathfinder books and then the 5th edition books, all on a single shelf, all to themselves, and wondering to yourself
"How did it ever come so far so fast?"
You're right, that's way more sad. Perspective dictates your reality. You have successfully changed my perspective, thank you!
Edit: @SmiloDan, how hard is the conversion of the APs to 5e?
Yes that might be sad.
Imagine looking at the bookcase in your dinning room and seeing the 1st edition books, next to the second edition books, next to the 3rd edition, the 3.5 edition, and 4th edition books, and then finally, on the end of the shelf, after all these, the Pathfinder books and then the 5th edition books, all on a single shelf, all to themselves, and wondering to yourself
"How did it ever come so far so fast?"
You're right, that's way more sad. Perspective dictates your reality. You have successfully changed my perspective, thank you!
Edit: @SmiloDan, how hard is the conversion of the APs to 5e?
I'm used to converting Paizo APs (I always play in Golarion and predominantly use Paizo adventures, regardless of system). In 5E's case, I found it quite straightforward although there were a couple of traps.
I ran curse of the crimson throne with milestone levelling (basically 4 levels per book - I wanted them to have some time at 20th level, so they got there right at the start of book 6 - we also used it as a 'try out all levels of 5E' experiment, so we just accepted some sometimes ludicrous levelling pace).
I converted skill DCs on the fly - (1/2 DC + 4) was what I used and it worked out surprisingly well across all levels (so a 25 DC became a 16).
For monsters I just used the 5E Monster Manual version when one existed, relied on the NPC section a lot and substituted a level-appropriate creature from the MM or from FGG's Lost Foes when something came up without a 5E version.
We had a couple of really brutish damage dealers and I very quickly adopted the policy of giving all monsters maximum hit points. Especially at the high levels, fighters can really pump out loads of hit point damage very quickly.
This leads to the main issue I remembered early but kept forgetting: encounter design. It seems to me that PF is really built around the idea of fighting a small number of powerful foes. 5E works better (for me, anyhow) when it is a few plucky heroes fighting off large numbers of monsters.
When I gave them a solo creature I had to really buff their hit points. 4 high level 5E characters optimised for combat can pump out monstrous levels of damage in the first few rounds of combat. I read an interesting article on 5E design which suggested this is a feature of 5E's design - that things don't scale by difficulty to hit/resist but by hit points (the monsters' AC went up much, much slower than the party's attacks).
The most memorable encounters were a few toughies surrounded by hordes of minions. Once or twice (in Scarwall, in particular) I made the mistake of designing a solo 'boss fight' where I either gave it incredible defenses or incredible hit points - both of which led to grindy, dull combats rather than the epic climactic scene I was hoping for.
All in all though, it was very quick. I generally find that it takes me just as long to convert a PF module to a simple system as it does to prep it to run in PF - though I confess I'm pretty bad at PF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just rearranged my home office, which meant condensing all my books on to fewer bookshelves. (I turned half the room into a kids play room). I had to decide which books needed to be put in boxes and sent to the garage and which books would stay on the bookshelves for easy reference. My gaming books were an easy choice. Now, I finally have all my gaming books organized and up on the shelves (instead of scattered throughout the house and across whatever bookshelf they got shoved into), and I looked back over my history of game with a bit of pride.
Then I looked at my two year old son and thought, "I can't wait until he's old enough to game with me." :)
Our DM says converting is very easy. Maybe an hour or two to do each part (1-6) of RotRL. We're still in part 6, and we just turned level 12. We're several levels behind where we "should" be, but different systems do level differently. We're having fun.
We've also dealt with significantly higher CR monsters than we "should" have. For example, around level 10, we took on a CR 20 dragon several times. We didn't kill it, but we chased it off 3 times, the last permanently.
We're several levels behind where we "should" be, but different systems do level differently.
Yeah, that definitely became clear when I ran CotCT. "fifteenth level" isn't some objective thing that the two systems are trying to emulate - it's the same label used to describe two very different things.
Rise of the Runelords is our next campaign - my plan is to run it from 3rd to 11th this time and see how that goes.
It's really neither here nor there to anyone who's already been converting their own/their group's satisfaction, but WotC has an official conversion system. The best way I've seen it described was on WotC's very own forum as "More than I expected, less than I want."
All that I've read across various threads makes me sad. Sad because it really makes me want to go and buy the 5e Player's Guide, DMG, and Bestiary, and I'm afraid when I do that I'll give up on Pathfinder altogether, and there goes about 6+ years of investment.
I play both. One group I hang out with plays Pathfinder, the other group 5e. They scratch slightly different itches when it comes to my fantasy gaming habits.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving the GM, explicitly, back a lot of the power they lost in 3x, is probably the best gift 5e gave to old school Gms. It takes some of the teeth out of "rules lawyer" arguments, and lets the game run more smoothly without getting too bogged down in remembering seventeen zillion situational modifiers and whatnot. Playing sessions that move swiftly advancing the story, instead of being a three hour combat with some role play at mid to high levels is a boon to parents with full time jobs and little gaming time.
That's one of the things I don't like about it! When I DM, I want to spend my time running the game, not making up rules on the fly. I also want the players to drive the story, not "advance" it myself...
|
|
That's one of the things I don't like about it! When I DM, I want to spend my time running the game, not making up rules on the fly. I also want the players to drive the story, not "advance" it myself...
If you have to advance the story yourself, it isn't a rules problem, it's a you need better players problem. ;-)
That's one of the things I don't like about it! When I DM, I want to spend my time running the game, not making up rules on the fly. I also want the players to drive the story, not "advance" it myself...
I agree to a point. When my group gets together to play 3.5 or 4e we know the rules and situational modifier so well now that there is very little rules-lawyering going on. Even in corner cases the rules are pretty well explained to derive a general concensus on the ruling. Yes, it took a while to get there and yes there are still even times that will put the DMs opinion against the player but I'd assume most are mature enough to get through these few times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving the GM, explicitly, back a lot of the power they lost in 3x, is probably the best gift 5e gave to old school Gms. It takes some of the teeth out of "rules lawyer" arguments, and lets the game run more smoothly without getting too bogged down in remembering seventeen zillion situational modifiers and whatnot. Playing sessions that move swiftly advancing the story, instead of being a three hour combat with some role play at mid to high levels is a boon to parents with full time jobs and little gaming time.
I have to say. This, for me at least, is the most convincing argument to switch. My face to face (on an actual table top) games are played exclusively with my children and their friends, and we all tend to end up getting bogged down by trying to make sure all the numbers add up and are applied appropriately. In the end, they always defer to my judgment, so it would be nice if the rules did too, but many times after a session is over I've looked back over the rules and realized I applied something wrong, or somebody shouldn't have been able to do what they said they did. :) Well, I guess I know what I'm doing with those holiday Amazon.com gift certificates. XD
I actually played in a group with a goliath monk and druid summoner and a whip-master bard and swashbuckling duskblade and we actually learned the rules for 3.5 grappling!!!!! :-O
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thread necro'ing my own thread for two reasons. One: I checked out the 5e Player's Guide from my local library to give it a very thorough read through. Two: Hero Lab now has 5e support.
Regarding point one: Wow!! When people like houstonderek said that 5e gives the DM back a lot of power, he wasn't kidding. And, unlike some, I think that is a very good thing. When I tried to sum up the difference between the Pathfinder ruleset, and the 5e ruleset to my kids (the same ones I play at the tabletop with) I said this: "Pathfinder is a clunky mess, in comparison 5e is elegant and simple." That's the best way I can describe the difference. Things I love about the 5e ruleset are: the new treatment of spellcasting (prepared spells can be used in any slot a caster has open); the simplistic handling of equipment (buying, using, and selling); the entirely new ability score driven and minimalistic skill system (stealth actually works); and the REALLY simplistic adjudication of light and darkness (darkness is heavily obscured and unless you have dark vision you gained the blinded condition); add into all that the pretty simple and easily adjudicated movement and combat rules, and you have a winner winner chicken dinner.
Regarding point two: Hello!!! I've been using Hero Lab almost since I switched to Pathfinder, and I switched to Pathfinder right when it came out in August 2009. Hero Lab is the modern GM's best friend, making character creation, leveling, and even tracking combat a lot faster and easier. With the advent of 5e's SRD and HL support, my biggest barrier to switching is gone!
So, having said all that, here's why I'm NOT switching. Yes, that's right, after all that praise, I've decided not to switch to 5e, at least for the time being. My first reason is purely financial. I said it before, and I'll say it again. I've invested a LOT of money in Pathfinder "rule" books (class guides, ultimates) over the years. I do have a couple setting books, and a lot of actual "hard" copy modules (which could be switched to 5e with some work), but the bulk of what I've purchased are rule books. My second reason for not switching is, interestingly enough, character options. My sons and I have become accustomed to being able to do just about darn near anything we want to do with the races and classes. For example, one of my youngest son's favorite characters is his goblin alchemist, Kruncha. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way for me to duplicate that character in the current 5e system. That doesn't mean that Wizards won't be publishing a lot of splat books in the near future. I can all but guarantee that they will, since they are in the business of making money after all. As of right now, though, Kruncha has to exist in the Pathfinder system. My third reason for not switching is this community. Over the years I've had a lot of positive (a few negative certainly, but more positive) interactions with the great people on these boards, and gotten a lot of my rules questions answered quickly and easily by brighter minds than mine.
So, there's that. Now, just to be clear, if, for some reason, I come into a windfall of cash money, you can bet I'll be switching systems posthaste, and figuring out how to closely replicate an alchemist with the available class option. :) But for now, I'll still be playing Pathfinder. Now if I could just figure out how to adapt the 5e skill rules into our existing game without too much work...
:)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Did you know you can be a successful 5E GM with only the PHB? ;)
As for the alchemist thing... Yeah, that seems to be the one big glaring issue with folks switching from PF to 5E: the lack of any sort of alchemist. Most other concepts are supportable, but the alchemist is nowhere to be found. There might be a homebrew floating around the web somewhere that you could use, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made one, and someone else made a better one, both using the Warlock chassis. Essentially you use cantrips for bombs (or make a new Bomb cantrip, like the warlock gets an eldritch blast cantrip), give it good saves in Int and Con or Dex, change its spellcasting stat to Int, replace Invocations with Discoveries, replace Boons with Mutagens, and customize a spell-list.
The better version I saw (I forget who made it) used the polymorph/wildshape rules for mutagen.
Alternatively, you can re-fluff the wizard as an alchemist.
Did you know you can be a successful 5E GM with only the PHB? ;)
As for the alchemist thing... Yeah, that seems to be the one big glaring issue with folks switching from PF to 5E: the lack of any sort of alchemist. Most other concepts are supportable, but the alchemist is nowhere to be found. There might be a homebrew floating around the web somewhere that you could use, though.
Believe you me, I thought long and hard about it! :) I mean, I seemed to do nothing else but think about it for the entirety of the length of time that I have had the book checked out from the library. I'll do some research into other people's alchemist hacks. Thanks for the heads up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say the same thing about 5th Edition that I said about Windows 7 when comparing it with Vista.
5th Edition is 4th Edition done right. Picking up and creating a character is a good deal faster than Pathfinder.
The good news with Herolab is that if you download the Community files, it even supports Adventure League (WOTC's version of PFS) play.
|
|
The system is free too. Most of the rules are in free pdfs on the WotC site.
I've played and DM'd a little bit of 5e. My two cents is..its too simple. And that's the opinion of another of my friends who's a regular PFS player. I've played D&D since 1e. I think if I want simple I'll play white box Swords & Wizardry. It's just me but I don't mind all the AoOs from having played Pathfinder/3.5 for over 15 years now.
I played a bit of 4e and DM'd it twice but it wasn't for me. I'll play 5e with friends and maybe DM 5e again for a friend but I prefer Pathfinder as a player for all the opinions and the crunch and as a GM for the Adventure paths and all the material from Paizo.
|
|
5th Edition is 4th Edition done right. Picking up and creating a character is a good deal faster than Pathfinder.
I think if you "know" a system you can make a character quickly. If you want to "game" Pathfinder sure it takes a while but with 20 point buy and a class kit for equipment and just the core book you can do it in under 10 minutes.
I don't know 4e very well and I could make a PC in 10 minutes without the online components. I've heard the same thing about GURPS but I know GURPS pretty will and with the book I can make a PC in about 10 minutes.
I'd at least 30 mins to an hour for a new player. A large part of that will be feat and skill choices plus working out all the modifiers. That's without getting into traits. I went through the experience with two new players that had played 3.0 for several years and 4th/5th edition. The process to an hour and that was just restricting to one trait from the players guide for the AP.
Sooooooooo many choices now built into the system. It is brilliant but also very off putting!
- ability scores
- race
- racial abilities
- favoured class ability
- class
- traits
- archetype
- skills
- feats
- equipment
- spells
Yeah thats without having to explain what these things are in the first place and how the modifiers work! Sure you can cut things out, up to a point but only up to a point.
So Qstor's advice that the rules are all online forced my brain to realize that there is, of course an SRD. My question for you that have played is: is that the pared down version of the entire 5e ruleset? Four-hundred and three pages of SRD covers the PHB, DMG, and MM? If so, color me excited because that means that we could start playing right away, and the only expense I'd incur is the $30.00 for the complete Hero Lab ruleset.