Why can't you just play both?
This is probably the best suggestion so far.
I've been running a 5e campaign, and I'm having a blast. I love the new system; it's flexible, there are no feat walls, classes are well balanced while still being unique, and more. On a tier list, I'd place all of the classes at Tier 3, with some at 3- and some at 3+. But none of them would be as good as a Tier 2 or as bad as a Tier 4.
When we talk 3PP for fixing PF, that's the Tier range most of us aim for.
But Pathfinder still has some great aspects about it. Lots of books = lots of player and GM options. Golarion is still one of my favorite settings (Just behind Planescape), and all the books written about Golarion are solid products - well written, good art, good production.
For me, the primary difference between the systems are a rules flexible vs a rules complex system, and they require a different mindset to run and play. The rules flexible system of 5e really helps the GM say "You want to try that? Ok, let's figure out how and find the difficulty." Sure, you can do that with PF, but it's so much easier to do it in 5e. Conversely, the rules complex system of PF allows for better protections of a player against a bad GM, and allows a player (and GM) to know exactly what can happen when an option is used. There's little-to-no ambiguity (except where we argue about it here).
I'm loving 5e, but I wouldn't call it a better system than PF, just a different system. And while it's going great for my gaming table, it may not work out so well for another. Find the system that works best for you. Heck, we may even go back to PF in the next campaign!
To the OP: One thing I do have to say that is vitally important in determining which system is best for your group is that you have to play the system correctly. Someone mentioned above that you're expecting a CR 3 encounter to be challenging to a level 5 party - and that just won't be true, in PF or 5e. For PF, reread through the Gamematering section of the CRB. For 5e, read the DMG. They provide good information for setting up level appropriate encounters, and if you deviate from that (which I often do!) then expect different results.
I often give my players easy meat to chew on (under-powered encounters), as well as occasionally give them something really tough that they may have to run from or use non-direct tactics to overcome. For example, just this weekend I gave them a mosnter who could kill them if they did a direct confrontation. Instead, they lured it onto a rope bridge and then cut the ropes.
I'd recommend that you stick with PF for a little longer and change your style to create more appropriate encounters (or simply expect that the party will easily defeat an encounter that's -2 from their APL). Maybe even go with an AP or Module so you don't have to create content on your own. Then switch to 5e and see how you like it. Then you can truly see which system would better suit your group's gaming style. Or do what my group wants to do and go back and forth.
Also, we have a burgeoning 5e sub-forum here on the boards called "D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)" where we talk about how to run and play 5e. Come on over and join the conversation!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my players in my Kingmaker campaign
Let me just stop you right there.
First off, let me just say that I love me Kingmaker. My company's early Pathfinder products were directly centered around Kingmaker because I love that campaign that much. I GMed it back in the day.
Having said that, Kingmaker has some serious problems with it. Namely over-reliance on low level monsters well long after they are useful. I had the exact same problem as you and the APG was new when we were playing.
Then there is the fact that the game assumes characters have 4-5 encounters before resting and Kingmaker has an average of 1-2, with only a few exceptions. Take your Sorc/Wiz problem for a moment. he can do that trick many times/day. So the only way for them to be challenged is to give them situations where that cannot be used.
Suggestions:
- A peasant revolt in their Kingdom. That is just low level guys straight out of the NPC Codex.
- Monsters with spell resistance.
- Place old ruins or caves in the kingdom that need explored. Adventure A Week modules or some converted Goodman Games/Necromancer modules are great for this.
- Forget the random encounters. If there is plot relevant stuff to be found in a hex, it is found and move on. Instead, focus on the multi-encounter days.
As for converting to 5e, yea, it can make a difference. Its a good game and I highly recommend it myself. But that is a decision you need to talk to the group about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So many people expect the game SYSTEM to handle something it can't: the temperament of the people who are playing, both GM and Players. It's the people who make or break a game system. Usually. There are bad systems out there.
5e is good, and has its own set of problems. And it, too, will eventually develop "bloat" as they continue to come out with new supplements and develop new classes, races, etc.
Pathfinder, like all good RPGs, is an evolving system. The additional books have added a lot of useless, situational, fringe material but also some good stuff as well. The new hybrid classes are an attempt to address the multi-classing issue inherent in almost all d20 systems. Some of them are quite good, some are OP, and some are still clunky as hell.
5e doesn't have that issue - yet. And 5e has more caps in play, restricting the wild bonuses one can give yourself in Pathfinder, which helps the GM.
The main thing is that you want a balance between GM power and player agency. Pathfinder swung farther to the Player end of the spectrum, the idea being that everyone knows the rules going in, so less is left up to GM fiat. 5e put power back in the GMs hands, back to the "we didn't spell it out, so adjudicate it yourself 'cuz you ain't gonna find it in the rules" mode of play. (Yes, you can do that in PF. But PF is more rules-based, hence the proliferation of Rules forum questions and FAQ requests. The community relies in the rules being clear and spelled out, and less on "decide for yourself/your table".)
I know what it's like to GM for a player who is stomping on the campaign. I had a player who went Master Summoner, and it killed the fun for everyone else at the table, myself included. That player relented and created a new character, but it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because that player really didn't get WHY it was no fun for the rest of us. Which has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the temperament of those playing the game.
So I don't know if switching will really resolve your issues because one can still create an OP character in 5e. It just won't be as OP as a PF character is all. It all depends on the players.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna go on a different tack here. Please don't be offended; it's not meant that way.
Maybe the problem is your expectations. Pathfinder is actually a fairly high-powered game, but many people come to it wanting to use it for a "gritty" or "realistic" or "low-magic" game or something like that. They are invariably disappointed. That's not what PF is good at, in fact you'll have to fight the system every step of the way.
That doesn't mean PF is a bad game, far from it. It's all about whether your expectations coincide with the things PF is good for.
Pathfinder is not a hardboiled detective movie kind of game, it's more like Die Hard, Conan, that kind of thing. It's about badass heroes who don't give up when the enemy looks tough, and who can mow through mooks easily.
I've been playing with some people for ages, and in the beginning we tried shoehorning PF into a more lower power, lower magic game. It was terribly frustrating. Then I started playing PFS and got exposed to scenarios written based on the assumption that PCs are pretty damn epic. Basically, I got a taste of how PF was supposed to work. It was great!
I'm still interested in finding another game system for the more down to earth kind of stories, because I enjoy those too. I just don't use PF for them.
So my recommendation to you is: play some PFS scenarios and kick ass. See if you enjoy that kind of thing, and whether you'd enjoy GMing that kind of thing. If not, then maybe PF isn't the ideal gaming system for your tastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a tier list, I'd place all of the classes at Tier 3, with some at 3- and some at 3+. But none of them would be as good as a Tier 2 or as bad as a Tier 4.
Really? From my readings and (admittedly small amount of) playing, it seems like most the classes are tier 4 (can do one thing really well but not really good at anything else), with true casting classes as tier 3 (always potentially something they can do to help with the situation). 5e still has the issue of "if you aren't a caster, all you can do is stab things".
(Ascalaphus: try a slightly modified True20 system. You might find what you want with minimal rules differences.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP, if you are seriously considering going with a Core only Pathfinder experience, might I suggest at least allowing ACG and Unchained? Both of those supplements add quite a bit of variety to the main playing experience, including classes that aren't powerful, but still bring a lot of flavor to the game.
For example, Unchained especially makes Rogues playable. Not particularly powerful, but they can actually do what they were designed to do without taking mandatory feat tax for dex-to-hit, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a simpler, more down to earth, less rules-intensive fantasy RPG, I suggest not using 5E. There are plenty of other games out there, almost all of them better.Would you mind me asking what games they are?
Since I share Casual Viking's opinion, here would be my suggestions:
1. Savage Worlds - you could convert 90+% of PF flavor to SW with just SW Deluxe and the Fantasy Companion (if you wanted to; conversion isn't required). It also has excellent 3rd-party support for fantasy gaming. I love PF but if I ever switch fantasy systems it would be to Savage Worlds for its flexibility, ability to customize, and speed of play.
2. Dragon Age/Fantasy Age - I've only tried the preview rules but DA ticks almost all of the PF/D&D boxes via a much simpler system. DA emulates its source material well from what I can see, and FA seems like it will offer the engine for you to customize as you like.
3. Mutants and Masterminds - my seemingly "weird" choice, but it can model fantasy (especially swords and sorcery-style comics) incredibly well. Of the 3 I mention, this one has its roots as a d20 game.
Why don't I use these as my FRPG go-to? I like my PF options. :)
I'm gonna go on a different tack here. Please don't be offended; it's not meant that way.
Maybe the problem is your expectations. Pathfinder is actually a fairly high-powered game, but many people come to it wanting to use it for a "gritty" or "realistic" or "low-magic" game or something like that. They are invariably disappointed. That's not what PF is good at, in fact you'll have to fight the system every step of the way.
That doesn't mean PF is a bad game, far from it. It's all about whether your expectations coincide with the things PF is good for.
Pathfinder is not a hardboiled detective movie kind of game, it's more like Die Hard, Conan, that kind of thing. It's about badass heroes who don't give up when the enemy looks tough, and who can mow through mooks easily.
I've been playing with some people for ages, and in the beginning we tried shoehorning PF into a more lower power, lower magic game. It was terribly frustrating. Then I started playing PFS and got exposed to scenarios written based on the assumption that PCs are pretty damn epic. Basically, I got a taste of how PF was supposed to work. It was great!
I'm still interested in finding another game system for the more down to earth kind of stories, because I enjoy those too. I just don't use PF for them.
So my recommendation to you is: play some PFS scenarios and kick ass. See if you enjoy that kind of thing, and whether you'd enjoy GMing that kind of thing. If not, then maybe PF isn't the ideal gaming system for your tastes.
Let me once again suggest Dragon Age. Awesome system. It might not be as low powered as you want (though I think it's lower powered than 5e in my opinion)...but it does have the gritty feel to it.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my campaign, the PCs walked in on a bunch of kobolds who were playing a tabletop game with dice and maps. It was really meta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a tier list, I'd place all of the classes at Tier 3, with some at 3- and some at 3+. But none of them would be as good as a Tier 2 or as bad as a Tier 4.Really? From my readings and (admittedly small amount of) playing, it seems like most the classes are tier 4 (can do one thing really well but not really good at anything else), with true casting classes as tier 3 (always potentially something they can do to help with the situation). 5e still has the issue of "if you aren't a caster, all you can do is stab things".
Absolutely. Every class does have their specialty and can do it well, but no clas is limited to just their specialty. Due to Bounded Accuracy, you do not have to specialize in a second "thing" to be able to do it with a reasonable chance of success in game.
For example, grappling. In Pathfinder, if you want to be decent at grappling, you have to specialize in it with feats. If you don't, then you will suffer from AoO, a poor chance of success, or simply wasted actions. Corner cases exist - such as Full BAB classes grappling half BAB classes, but in general if you're not specialized in grappling then you can't really do it with any reasonable chance of success. In 5e, any one can grapple most things with a reasonable chance, and those who specialize in it can do even better (or do more than just grabbing someone).
In a rules complex system such as Pathfinder, if you want to do something, you have to specialize and/or invest. In a rules flexible system, such as 5e, you can simply perform the action without much investment. What investment does is make you better; but there isn't a wall from which it hides behind.
I asked my players what they thought, and the general consensus is that they can do much more varied things in 5e than they could in PF. I believe that a lot of it comes from the changed in mindset. PF has so many walls that you get used to only doing what's on your character sheet. If it's not there, you don't think of doing it (which is something I've been trying to get my players to stop doing for years now). In 5e, there are no such constraints, so they think outside the character sheet a lot more. Cutting the rope bridge to defeat an opponent (see my previous post in this thread) was something they never would have done in PF, because it wasn't written on their character sheet that they could do it.
So far - for me - the caster-martial disparity has almost disappeared. I thought it was still going to exist when I first read the PHB, and I was skeptical. But I haven't seen it yet, and I haven't made a theorycraft character comparisons that shows it (yet). But I'm still in low level play; I am still expecting it to creep it's head back up as we progress through the campaign, and if it does I'll be able to report a more informed analysis. Even with that, we played a two-session module with 10th level premade characters, and I didn't see any disparity. Everyone was relatively equal in power, everyone could do many different things, martial characters could do more than just stab - even my Four Elements Monk (considered the weakest class in the game) was able to contribute with effectiveness - and everyone had fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you intend to stick with kingmaker, then figure out what CR your party is (assuming 4 players at 5th level they'd be CR 20) and then hike up the challenge numbers a bit. CR10 is an average encounter from what I understand, so toss them a CR 12 and see how they fair....I'm sorry, but you don't know how CRs work.
Please don't send a 5th level party a CR12 encounter.
Fair enough. I am pretty new to DMing still, and am still getting the hang of CRs. I probably get my skewed challenge settings from my DM haha. Either way, my bad. I still stand by not just using one big creature of proper CR most of the time though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kingmaker is a notoriously easy AP especially for spellcasters.
Add to that his build was a thought experiment designed to completely invalidate people who thought casters needed someone else to finish enemies off. Basically the one punch man of wizards exploding encounters with 1 spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you intend to stick with kingmaker, then figure out what CR your party is (assuming 4 players at 5th level they'd be CR 20) and then hike up the challenge numbers a bit. CR10 is an average encounter from what I understand, so toss them a CR 12 and see how they fair....I'm sorry, but you don't know how CRs work.
Please don't send a 5th level party a CR12 encounter.
Indeed.
A level 5 PC is roughly a CR 5 encounter.If you double the quantity, you add 2 to the CR.
2 level 5 PCs = CR 7.
4 level 5 PCs = CR 9.
8 level 5 PCs = CR 11.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This being the Pathfinder forums, you'll mostly find Pathfinder supporters here.
I'm going to go ahead and say, yes, Pathfinder is a big ball of complex and maybe 5E would be better. Of course, I would highly recommend you check out 13th Age or Fantasy Age, two systems that are (like 5e) not as bloated and have their own simplicity and elegance.
I will also say I love Kingmaker, but I think it's one of the campaigns that requires the most customization to run well. It definitely helps to drop sidequests and extra dungeons around the map. The overland encounters are mostly thematic and often not too much trouble for a party given the 1/day use your best spells issues that pathfinder has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level 5 PC is roughly a CR 5 encounter.
If you double the quantity, you add 2 to the CR.
2 level 5 PCs = CR 7.
4 level 5 PCs = CR 9.
8 level 5 PCs = CR 11.
That's not how APL works either.
A CR 5 encounter is supposed to be an average encounter for a party of four fifth level PCs.
So the above math is correct for how to calculate the CR of that number of NPCs (who have PC levels of wealth), that's not the math you use for figuring out what CR a party should be able to face. (Although I've always felt the characters with class levels math skews weak for the appropriate CR, that's a discussion for a different thread.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wands but ICly I held back since that wasn't the sort of thing the average barbarian, even a smart one, would think of off the top of her head.I'm on record as hating on the Wand of CLW, so be strong -- you're not alone.
To me, that's more metagame than actually using them. They're so self-evidently useful in-game and in-character that they should be all over the place being used very often. A character pointedly NOT using them seems odd to me since the only reason to think of that is because the player has an issue with the mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any advice for or against 5e, so play it if you want to, but it sounds like you could do a bit better with adjusting the CR of your encounters. And you didn't learn the number one GM rule which is don't fall in love with your villains, because PCs will never cooperate. They will do their best to humiliate, one shot and pants your NPCs at every chance they get. I'd start with upping the CR on everything until those one shot encounters become a thing of the past.
I allow everything in a Paizo book and almost anything from a wide selection of third party publishers such as Legendary Games, Purple Duck, Rite Publishing, Rogue Genius, Dreamscarred, etc. Increasing the CR of encounters makes everything manageable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never met *any* rule system, regardless of how much or how little bloat is involved in the rule system, that I have not changed. I have house ruled everything from Monopoly to D&D. The rules have to work for you, you don't work for the rules.
As the DM, you don't have to allow every book ever published. I suggest, instead, putting together a list of books you do allow and opening everything else up subject to review and negotiation. The list of books you do allow can be as short or as long as you like.
Agreeing with what Brother Fen said above me. Every game is a delicate dance between the player and the GM. The players want to kill things efficiently. Part of your job as GM is to be aware of what abilities your players have at their disposal and what their tactics are and adjust accordingly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think that "bloat" doesn't have to be a problem.
Not talking to your players is.
Admittetly I DM for a group of old friends only, not for people I don't know, like it mostly is the case when DMing Society or via the internet.
Anyway - talking to players makes bloat no problem at all.
I told my players:"Look guys, I don't want to keep that stuff away from you. Try what you want to try and play what you want to. But with all the rules out there, it is impossible for me to know every single clitch in the game or rules! If something is too overpowered or makes the game too easy for your, or, most of all, does make other players feel like their pcs doesn't matter, we have that change things!"This is understood, and I, as the DM am at ease, knowing if stuff like what the OP was talking about happens mit can be changed readily.
I had one GM that would allow any Over-powered trick once. Then it was fair game for him to due to us as well.
The notable item was our wizard never using disintegrate. She knew knew she could use it once or twice in pinch situations, but it would then be used by future enemies on her.
In that case it was a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lower the stat buy.
This effectively makes it so much harder to build the crazier things. To maintain those awesome attacks they dump so many other skills. Now there wisdom and perception is negative.
So moments where things go his way, he will do awesome damage. When he is mind controlled with his 0 will save he is now a threat to his team.
I generally go with PFS rules for legality in my PF home games. The rules are already set and well made. I will allow anything outside of pfs with a quick reason as to why.
Dont do this!
A Munchkin caster player will still keep his casting stat maxxed (99% of his power) and only loose on very minor points. His spells are his power, and they are not influenced by lower PB unless you go down to like PB10.
Martial characters on the other hand actually make use of several stats for their skills and general abilities, which all get impacted by the lowered PB.
Casters are SAD. Lowered PB hits MAD characters the most!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Point Gen: I've ran games at 15pt, 20pt and 25pt, and settled on 25pt as my preferred system. In my experience the lower stat points cause people to min-max their stats more: The fighter still starts with Strength 18 either way, but in 25pt gen they tend not to be the most ignorant and uncharismatic bozo on the planet, which seemed to be the norm at 15pt. That said, this depends mostly on the players and the game style - but in my experience dropping to 15pt gen won't actually make a PC less powerful in combat... just less versatile outside of it.
/seconded.
I have made the same experiences.
On a tier list, I'd place all of the classes at Tier 3, with some at 3- and some at 3+. But none of them would be as good as a Tier 2 or as bad as a Tier 4.Really? From my readings and (admittedly small amount of) playing, it seems like most the classes are tier 4 (can do one thing really well but not really good at anything else), with true casting classes as tier 3 (always potentially something they can do to help with the situation). 5e still has the issue of "if you aren't a caster, all you can do is stab things".
One of the not terribly obvious but significant changes is that skills in 5E are more useful since many of the spells are less powerful than their counterparts in earlier editions. Also, casters have considerably fewer spells per day and can't keep loads and loads of spells active - hence using the wizard to solve everything is not usually the best use of resources.
Martial types tend to be good to go after a short rest of an hour, whereas casters generally need a rest overnight - and given the assumption is a few short rests a day, that also increases the value of non-magical solutions.
You still need casters to plane shift, scry, teleport and so forth. But it's probably not a good idea to get them to open the locks and find traps except in very specific circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its pretty simple, only allow things from supplements you're familiar and comfortable with, and ask the players you know are prone to optimizing to explain the mechanics of how their character works before approving it or saying "no i think that challenging a character like that would turn GMing into a bit too much work for me, please stick to things that don't overpower core bestiary monsters as easily as farting sideways at them".
Wow! Farting sideways at someone is a superpower I want! It helps fight cancer, you know!
Absolutely. Every class does have their specialty and can do it well, but no clas is limited to just their specialty. Due to Bounded Accuracy, you do not have to specialize in a second "thing" to be able to do it with a reasonable chance of success in game.
Due to Bounded Accuracy, everyone sucks equally at things they aren't specialized in since your stats will never be good enough to be decent at things you aren't specialized it, they'll always be under it.
I asked my players what they thought, and the general consensus is that they can do much more varied things in 5e than they could in PF. I believe that a lot of it comes from the changed in mindset. PF has so many walls that you get used to only doing what's on your character sheet. If it's not there, you don't think of doing it (which is something I've been trying to get my players to stop doing for years now). In 5e, there are no such constraints, so they think outside the character sheet a lot more. Cutting the rope bridge to defeat an opponent (see my previous post in this thread) was something they never would have done in PF, because it wasn't written on their character sheet that they could do it.
Wow... umm... I think that says more about your group than PF if they don't know how to be inventive in PF.... Yeah, I'd say that is more your groups mindset than anything. In my experience the stuff you can do is much less in 5e from our playstyle because there was simply more stuff to do. Sure if you wanted to do something like grappling, you might have a better chance at succeeding with a character would reasonably suck at grappling (though don't ever look at the 5e crafting rules, they make the PF rules look like gold), compared to PF were a character who would sucks at grappling would suck at grappling, but all the "non character sheet stuff" you can do that in PF just as easily in 5e. That is not a benefit of 5e, that's a benefit of being a tabletop RPG.
So far - for me - the caster-martial disparity has almost disappeared. I thought it was still going to exist when I first read the PHB, and I was skeptical. But I haven't seen it yet, and I haven't made a theorycraft character comparisons that shows it (yet). But I'm still in low level play; I am still expecting it to creep it's head back up as we progress through the campaign, and if it does I'll be able to report a more informed analysis. Even with that, we played a two-session module with 10th level premade characters, and I didn't see any disparity. Everyone was relatively equal in power, everyone could do many different things, martial characters could do more than just stab - even my Four Elements Monk (considered the weakest class in the game) was able to contribute with effectiveness - and everyone had fun.
From my readings (of rules and gitp's 5e board) and playing, the disparity still exists and non-casters can't really do anything aside from stab things. The disparity IS lower to a degree, they nerfed how casting works, nerfed many spells, gave normally martial classes options like flight... and spellcasting.
One of the not terribly obvious but significant changes is that skills in 5E are more useful since many of the spells are less powerful than their counterparts in earlier editions.
More useful. That's a funny idea. I've seen skills as much less useful since you have to be a rogue or you suck. I probably wouldn't see it as sucking as much if I hadn't played 3.5e, PF, and 4e before hand, but 5e's skill system + it's method of bounded accuracy honestly was the most disappointing aspect of the whole system, making sure you cannot be good at something ever unless you are a rogue and it's a dex skill. PC's basically cannot be great at skills and will always be worse at them than real life people, which... is sad. You're meant to be heroes in a fantasy setting, they should be better than that.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...Where are you getting the idea that 5E characters, due to bounded accuracy, "suck" at skills or are "worse than real life people"? Did you port over unmodified Pathfinder DCs? Or maybe you kept Pathfinder's "everything needs a check" mentality?
One of the not terribly obvious but significant changes is that skills in 5E are more useful since many of the spells are less powerful than their counterparts in earlier editions.More useful. That's a funny idea. I've seen skills as much less useful since you have to be a rogue or you suck. I probably wouldn't see it as sucking as much if I hadn't played 3.5e, PF, and 4e before hand, but 5e's skill system + it's method of bounded accuracy honestly was the most disappointing aspect of the whole system, making sure you cannot be good at something ever unless you are a rogue and it's a dex skill. PC's basically cannot be great at skills and will always be worse at them than real life people, which... is sad. You're meant to be heroes in a fantasy setting, they should be better than that.
What makes you think everyone sucks? The DCs are much lower in 5E than in PF/3.5.
I generally play the lockpicking/trap disarming guy but have never been a rogue. I don't really understand your comment here at all - it's true that the rogue (or bard) with expertise becomes very good at whatever skill they specialise in, but everyone else isn't that far behind (that being the point of bounded accuracy, really).
EDIT: For reference, the kind of challenges you meet at low-mid levels have a DC of 10-15 the harder stuff is 15-20 and the super-hard, really tough stuff is 20-25. It's pretty rare to encounter a DC30 or something.
One of the not terribly obvious but significant changes is that skills in 5E are more useful since many of the spells are less powerful than their counterparts in earlier editions.More useful. That's a funny idea. I've seen skills as much less useful since you have to be a rogue or you suck. I probably wouldn't see it as sucking as much if I hadn't played 3.5e, PF, and 4e before hand, but 5e's skill system + it's method of bounded accuracy honestly was the most disappointing aspect of the whole system, making sure you cannot be good at something ever unless you are a rogue and it's a dex skill. PC's basically cannot be great at skills and will always be worse at them than real life people, which... is sad. You're meant to be heroes in a fantasy setting, they should be better than that.What makes you think everyone sucks? The DCs are much lower in 5E than in PF/3.5.
I generally play the lockpicking/trap disarming guy but have never been a rogue. I don't really understand your comment here at all - it's true that the rogue (or bard) with expertise becomes very good at whatever skill they specialise in, but everyone else isn't that far behind (that being the point of bounded accuracy, really).
EDIT: For reference, the kind of challenges you meet at low-mid levels have a DC of 10-15 the harder stuff is 15-20 and the super-hard, really tough stuff is 20-25. It's pretty rare to encounter a DC30 or something.
I had been wondering what DCs you'd be looking at there (ACs too, of course, similar concept).
By the way, could someone explain this 'bounded accuracy' thing I keep seeing thrown about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The essential idea is that there is severe restriction on adding lots of incremental bonuses, together with considerably lower caps on DCs (or Armor Classes, Defenses, etcetera). We played a campaign through to 20th level using monsters from the Monster Manual and (from memory) the PCs fought one thing with an AC of 25 and the rest capped out at around 22 (PC armor classes can get a little higher than that, but ours never reached 30). I was converting a 3.5 adventure and I used the conversion (half x DC + 4) which seemed to work out okay (a 3.5 DC of 25 became a 5E DC of 16).
Rather than adding lots of bonuses, the system relies very heavily on advantage/disadvantage (which is roll 2d20s and take the higher/lower respectively).
The goal was for the d20 to remain significant throughout all twenty levels and to avoid the problem of one PC being an auto-success with everyone else being an auto-fail. It makes skill resolution and combats very rapid, but sacrifices the simulationist approach (four disadvantages are cancelled out by one advantage, for example).
It has the result that the difference in skills between a low level and a high level PC is much less (although in combat the difference is enhanced somewhat due to increasing access to every more powerful class abilities).
This is the biggest cosmetic thing that one should be aware of - if you want to become god-like in your abilities, 5E isn't for you. You'll start competent and grow to being extremely competent, but the difference in 1st level to 20th level isn't great (a typical skill you're interested in for your class will start at +5 probably and end at +11 or so (rarely up to say +18 in some corner cases).
Another thing worth being aware of is that 1st and 2nd levels are essentially 'apprenticeship levels' you zoom through them and you only really become a "real adventurer" at level three (the game pretty much suggests that starting at level three is the best option once everyone knows the way the game works). I think it's a common error to assume that a 15th level 5E character is equivalent in power to a 15th level PF character - In my mind the span of 5E levels 3-20 is akin to the PF levels 2-10 or so.
I don't think 5E would be a good fit for those who enjoy high level Pathfinder - it's more similar to P8 (or P9, P10....there isn't an exact analog).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Where are you getting the idea that 5E characters, due to bounded accuracy, "suck" at skills or are "worse than real life people"? Did you port over unmodified Pathfinder DCs? Or maybe you kept Pathfinder's "everything needs a check" mentality?
People on gitp were comparing what a high level fighter could do with skills, they were worse than what real world people could do.
There was also the issue that the bounded accuracy meant that unless you were a rogue (or bard, I think bards had the ability as well, but I haven't had a player play the bard yet so I haven't looked them over in a while) the dice roll matters a ridiculous amount over the players characters stats meaning that characters who are strong heroes fail fair too often at things that really shouldn't be too hard.
...Where are you getting the idea that 5E characters, due to bounded accuracy, "suck" at skills or are "worse than real life people"? Did you port over unmodified Pathfinder DCs? Or maybe you kept Pathfinder's "everything needs a check" mentality?People on gitp were comparing what a high level fighter could do with skills, they were worse than what real world people could do.
There was also the issue that the bounded accuracy meant that unless you were a rogue (or bard, I think bards had the ability as well, but I haven't had a player play the bard yet so I haven't looked them over in a while) the dice roll matters a ridiculous amount over the players characters stats meaning that characters who are strong heroes fail fair too often at things that really shouldn't be too hard.
Was it jump distances maybe? They seem a little low to me in 5E.
The latter issue is just a problem of misassigning DCs. You can always select them to be at whatever level "feels right" to your group, since 5E doesn't have tables of assigned difficulties.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder, I can make a kangaroo-mounted halfling that dual-wields boomerangs.
I can't do that in 5e.
You probably could if you worked it out with the GM. Mounted based character who has two throwing weapons. And the boomerang is likely to come out in a splat book if it hasn't already. That's the advantage of a rules flexible system. Albeit this is akin to saying "house rule it," which is generally a poor argument. But 5e is designed to be able to make such house rules on the fly with minimal investment. That's the entire design philosophy of the system - you don't need explicit rules to do something. Which is why I keep saying that it requires a completey different gaming mindset than PF.
Conversey, a rules complex system like PF already has ready made rules for such a character, which makes building a character like that a bit easier (not that building a 3.X character can ever be described as "easy"). So building such a character doesn't require GM fiat. So we get back to Pathfinder being a good system for player protection and avoiding a "mother-may-I" scenario.
In my opinion, they're both great systems; they just hit on different play styles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is another enormous difference between the two systems, in my opinion. Pathfinder tries to be exhaustive whereas 5E is built with the assumption of DM fiat being a central and often indispensable part of the process. There's a few examples, but Mearls's comment about the stealth rules being deliberately incomplete is the most explicit:
"These rules intentionally rely on DM judgment to adjudicate. DM has to judge situations, whether PC can hide."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the not terribly obvious but significant changes is that skills in 5E are more useful since many of the spells are less powerful than their counterparts in earlier editions.More useful. That's a funny idea. I've seen skills as much less useful since you have to be a rogue or you suck. I probably wouldn't see it as sucking as much if I hadn't played 3.5e, PF, and 4e before hand, but 5e's skill system + it's method of bounded accuracy honestly was the most disappointing aspect of the whole system, making sure you cannot be good at something ever unless you are a rogue and it's a dex skill. PC's basically cannot be great at skills and will always be worse at them than real life people, which... is sad. You're meant to be heroes in a fantasy setting, they should be better than that.What makes you think everyone sucks? The DCs are much lower in 5E than in PF/3.5.
I generally play the lockpicking/trap disarming guy but have never been a rogue. I don't really understand your comment here at all - it's true that the rogue (or bard) with expertise becomes very good at whatever skill they specialise in, but everyone else isn't that far behind (that being the point of bounded accuracy, really).
EDIT: For reference, the kind of challenges you meet at low-mid levels have a DC of 10-15 the harder stuff is 15-20 and the super-hard, really tough stuff is 20-25. It's pretty rare to encounter a DC30 or something.
I had been wondering what DCs you'd be looking at there (ACs too, of course, similar concept).
By the way, could someone explain this 'bounded accuracy' thing I keep seeing thrown about?
Caution; I am very BIASED against bounded Accuracy...just so you know prior to reading my thoughts.
Everyone advances at the same rate. YOu get a total of +4 to your attack bonus and skill proficiency increases over 20 levels. That is around a +1 every 4 levels. (you start with a +2 so it's +6 total at level 20...just to be clear).
You're a Wizard...great...you have a +4 to hit at level 10. Your a Warrior...doesn't matter that you specialize in weapons and you should be great at hitting things...you get a +4 to hit at level 10.
This is modified by your Stats...so great. At low level the Fighter has an 18 STR and gets a +4 to that bonus. A Wizard probably has their high stat in INT. However...the MAX your stats can be is 20 (not so many problems with this idea...but when combined with bounded accuracy....) so with being able to add to your stats like 3e...lets say that Wizard has a their max by 4th level in INT. They need to spend it somewhere...they spend in in STR...and who knows...the ONLY advantage the Fighter has is in attacks...right...he can get 5 attacks a round at 20th level! But wait...that Wizard...with the right spells or items...not only can hit as well...but also as often!
Of course...there are BETTER options for the Wizard at that point rather than combat (such as casting that enemy ending spell)...but overall...high level 5e makes Fighters basically suck harder than PF does in my opinion.
In some ways, it makes it remarkably flavorless comparatively to other systems...and in many ways it makes absolutely NO logical sense except for in game reasons (and this comes from someone who liked 4e which had similar items...bounded accuracy actually is just an extension of a similar concept in 4e to tell the truth, but even MORE ludicrous). Why a soldier who shoots their rifle every day and practices will only advance as quickly as some bookworm who never really uses a rifle except maybe once a year...is beyond absurd...it's gamism at it's greatest.
Of course, that is if anything survives to that point. I min/max...In casual play if you play like PF...you will have a +16 to hit on average with an AC in the 40s....with a Bless spell or other thing cast...you'll have a +17 to +20 to hit. AC's for the higher end of challenges are around an AC 19 to AC 21. You still just need a 1 to hit something. In addition, most monsters won't really be able to hit your. But that's for those Min/Max players like me who prefer Pathfinder...probably because it's not as broken in regards to min/maxing as 5e.
5e isn't made for min/max players...and so the usual player will have a mere +11 to +14 to hit rather than the +17 to +20 of a casual min/max player.
There ARE ways to improve beyond the bounded accuracy if you so wish, but overall...the system doesn't account for it. In truth, if they had warriors improve as always at a better pace than Wizards, similar to how rogues can be better at skills...it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference at higher levels...and would make it so that min/max players didn't have as big an advantage in that arena.
The problem is the limitations (primarily bounded accuracy and how it works) are artificial and feel artificial to me. There is no real reason for the limitations EXCEPT for gamist reasons which in game, to me, don't really make a whole lot of sense anyways.
I will admit, for low levels (like prior to 4th or 5th) it works great in execution. But the further along you get in levels, the more it starts falling apart at the seams.
5e caused some grief in our group since I'm the GM and really don't like 5e...but others wanted to play it.
However, it seems our disagreements on that are ending, Dragon Age (which I hear is basically the same as Fantasy Age, but Fantasy Age is more generic, and magic reflects that to a degree) seems perfect in that it has many of the items people like about 5e, but without the silly restrictions 5e has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caution; I am very BIASED against bounded Accuracy...just so you know prior to reading my thoughts.
Everyone advances at the same rate. YOu get a total of +4 to your attack bonus and skill proficiency increases over 20 levels. That is around a +1 every 4 levels. (you start with a +2 so it's +6 total at level 20...just to be clear).
While everyone does advance at the same rate, that's not really the main thrust of bounded accuracy. Rather, it's about getting better over time but without the massive number bloat that we see in 3e/PF and 4e. The ultimate bonuses you get are bounded - by a 20ish cap for most PCs and their stats, by a level-based proficiency bonus that tops off at +6 (some classes get a bit higher than this for special cases), and by relatively few ways to add other attack/skill bonuses (none of which needing to be substantially accounted for in game balance). Bounding the bonuses keeps target numbers (particularly AC) from having to bloat out of proportion to achieve game balance and so low-power monsters remain a more substantial threat than in 3e/PF and 4e, parties can support a wider spread of PC levels, and PCs don't have to maximize their bonuses to feel they're keeping up with the challenges of the game.
There are a number of 4e fans who claim that bounded accuracy in 5e is derived from 4e because they too focus on way all PCs advance at the same rate with their attack and skill proficiencies. But 5e's bounded accuracy, while it retained that feature, is more of a reaction against 4e's continued number bloat despite putting everyone on the same advancement rate.
Caution; I am very BIASED against bounded Accuracy...just so you know prior to reading my thoughts.
Everyone advances at the same rate. YOu get a total of +4 to your attack bonus and skill proficiency increases over 20 levels. That is around a +1 every 4 levels. (you start with a +2 so it's +6 total at level 20...just to be clear).
While everyone does advance at the same rate, that's not really the main thrust of bounded accuracy. Rather, it's about getting better over time but without the massive number bloat that we see in 3e/PF and 4e. The ultimate bonuses you get are bounded - by a 20ish cap for most PCs and their stats, by a level-based proficiency bonus that tops off at +6 (some classes get a bit higher than this for special cases), and by relatively few ways to add other attack/skill bonuses (none of which needing to be substantially accounted for in game balance). Bounding the bonuses keeps target numbers (particularly AC) from having to bloat out of proportion to achieve game balance and so low-power monsters remain a more substantial threat than in 3e/PF and 4e, parties can support a wider spread of PC levels, and PCs don't have to maximize their bonuses to feel they're keeping up with the challenges of the game.
There are a number of 4e fans who claim that bounded accuracy in 5e is derived from 4e because they too focus on way all PCs advance at the same rate with their attack and skill proficiencies. But 5e's bounded accuracy, while it retained that feature, is more of a reaction against 4e's continued number bloat despite putting everyone on the same advancement rate.
And interestingly enough, Dragon Age solves this without the bloat, but still letting each character be unique in their advancements...and not having artificial limitations placed upon them. It also keeps the class style simplistic with backgrounds (very similar to 5e), but at the same time, feeling far more open and available to players.
Yes...I'm currently REALLY digging Dragon Age (which as I said before, I understand Fantasy Age is the same system...but without the darker lore which DA works off of...so some changes to the magic system in slight ways).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't be sure overall. But from what I see of builds on this site, most of the over-powered-ness is due to using 20 and 30 point builds against Adventure Paths that expect 15 point builds. Also, I don't see how a player's build can be a surprise to the GM. There's also an issue, I think, with builds that are strong at particular levels but would be difficult to play at lower or higher levels. Cross-bloodedness has strong drawbacks. Multi-class caster dips that don't stack are weak at higher levels. Let them shine while they can, trouble is always on the horizon for an adventurer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some more info, in 5E all 5 of the fighter attack are at max bonus, there are no iteratives. This means that the lower bonus is not really such a huge factor, if you consider that in PF is only from the -10 attack onward that you actually have to rely on the dice to hit.
@GreyWolfLord I encourage to read more carefully the 5E ruleset you missed some big points. First, even if Wiz anf Figh have the same attack bonus, it only applies on the thing they have proficiency in. So, the fighter can use his bonus on his Greatsword, the Wiz only on his dagger. And since feat are such a powerfull and scarce resource, and static damage is not as high as PF, this makes a huge difference in combat.
Second, it is called out specifically that only the fighter can ever have more than 2 attacks, irrespectively of how many extra attack you manage to rack up.
Some more info, in 5E all 5 of the fighter attack are at max bonus, there are no iteratives. This means that the lower bonus is not really such a huge factor, if you consider that in PF is only from the -10 attack onward that you actually have to rely on the dice to hit.
@GreyWolfLord I encourage to read more carefully the 5E ruleset you missed some big points. First, even if Wiz anf Figh have the same attack bonus, it only applies on the thing they have proficiency in. So, the fighter can use his bonus on his Greatsword, the Wiz only on his dagger. And since feat are such a powerfull and scarce resource, and static damage is not as high as PF, this makes a huge difference in combat.
Second, it is called out specifically that only the fighter can ever have more than 2 attacks, irrespectively of how many extra attack you manage to rack up.
Page reference on the attack thing?
That would seem to negate some class abilities...which is an odd ruling. It also would negate some spells and magic.