Banning/allowing feats is conceptually the same as banning/allowing certain actions, at least in my view.Not really, in my view. Again, one happens before the game, the other during. That is a fairly large difference, especially if the rules were agreed upon before the game and then changed during.
Assuming the most common occurence of having a fixed DM, is not exactly the same? The first time you want to do something/pick something,you get said yes/no, and that stick till the end of the campaign.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably say the main difference is that 5e gives the player more freedom in terms of roleplaying the kind of character he wants, whereas Pathfinder has very specific builds someone must play to be useful in a group.
Even though beastmaster rangers are somewhat underpowered in 5th edition, I can still play a halfling rodent wrangler with a dire rat companion and be effective as part of the group. In Pathfinder, it's "play a halfling outrider or go home."
You should definitely play with a more friendly group. I'm certainly of the camp that thinks anyone not playing a 6 level progression caster or better is already underpowered, but that doesn't stop me from playing a fighter and having fun. I've never played in a group that told another player to go home because their character didn't reach some optimization threshold.
Certainly I think 5e is a bit more balanced than PF, but 5e definitely has the drawback of being only a limited pool of options compared to previous editions, with no sign of further support coming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ has the right of it here.
Again, this is from the different mindsets required to play the game.
In 5e, it is expected that the GM will make on the fly changes and that the DC to climb this 20' cliff may be different from the DC to climb that 20' cliff. And the character with proficiency in athletics may have a lower DC than the character without. Or the the character without proficiency may even have an auto failure while the character with can still roll for it. Or the player may bring up a valid reason why they should be allowed a Dex (athletics) check to climb the ledge instead of a strength (athletics) check. And all of this may be different the next game. That's the expectation you should have when walking into a game. It's fluid. It's dynamic. It changes. And that's ok, so long as you know what you're getting into.
In Pathfinder, it's expected that the rules stay static and reliable. They're solid. They're mostly unchanging. The DC for a 20' climb is set. Right there in the book. There's no question. So when a GM changes things on the fly, constantly, it's alarming. It's not what I expect from the game or the system. This is a problem. To overcome this problem, I request with my GM that I understand all the changes s/he made to the game before we start the game, so there are no surprises. Conversely, if I come into PF expecting the rules to change all the time, I may be disappointed when I can never use dexterity to climb (unless I find a trait or feat that says otherwise, which I then have to purchase with my available trait/feats).
These games require different mindsets and a different approach to enjoy. What makes 5e so enjoyable to me would not be enjoyable in a good game of pathfinder. The things I love about pathfinder would make a 5e game miserable. There not exactly opposites, but so much of the two systems are different that you can't have the expectations from one system and bring them to the other.
In other words, we're looking a complete paradigm shift.
Pathfinder is on the Lawful end of the spectrum, 5e is on the Chaotic end of the spectrum.
You know, it is weird. Posters frequently mention that 5e has fewer definitions of what you can and can't do, leaving it open to DM interpretation. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but Scavion's post made me think of this.Background abilities (be it Nobility or Seer or what have you) seems like it does the exact opposite. Maybe WotC thought they needed to inspire players to think more creatively when it comes to background, but saying that your background allows you to do research and gain hidden knowledge implies to me that you can't do the same sort of thing without that background.
Sure, there may be a sailor buddy in your history, but he can't give you free passage because that is a perk of a background you don't have.
And yes, a good DM will allow these sorts of things but it still rubs me the wrong way. Feels almost like a double standard. 5e is less explicit which is great. But it is also more explicit here, which is still great.
Not hating on 5e (I run one 5e game, one Pathfinder game, and one 3.5 game), but Background abilities are one of the things I dislike in that system. Good system overall.
More I think that the background allows you to do it mechanically - without relying on the GM fiat. That doesn't mean someone without the Sailor thing in the background can't be given a free passage, but that's up to the GM.
That said, I'd want to heavily modify some of those backgrounds for setting assumptions. I don't usually have major merchant guild influence in my worlds, for example.
Edit: Or being a Noble might give a lot more advantages in your own country than across the world. Or be even riskier in an enemy land.
I know the conversation has moved past my comment but I wanted to jump back to it to clarify. This is entirely true and I did not make it clear enough in my post that I wanted to focus on this aspect of the backgrounds.
It should be obvious to any GM (good or not) that non-Outlanders are automatically lost in the wilderness or that non-Acolytes can receive healing services from certain temples.
But from a lot of what I hear regarding 5e, people like it a lot for being a lot less explicit and more flexible. For example, someone brought up that the Stealth rules are intentionally vague in 5e. And let me preface this by saying perhaps I'm wrong and this isn't actually a common compliment of the system! But it seems that backgrounds giving explicit benefits goes opposite of this design decision and seems weird.
Again, it may be intentional but it sticks out to me as a shift in the design philosophy. It could be that they found players did not flesh out backgrounds enough and giving them discrete bonuses influenced players to think more about how their background can aid them in gameplay. I can't say why but it stands out as odd to me and I was hoping to get some discussion going regarding it (which I did!)
That's all, thanks for the responses. I just wanted clarify that in no-way am I encouraging DMs to limit player choices or insulting the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a player wish to do a nonlethal coup de grace. When I told him you needed a feat for that, he blew up and stormed out, utterly destroying any hope of anyone having fun for the rest of the game.
That's definitely one of the few problems that Pathfinder has.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
is there too much meta in Pathfinder?
Can someone take pity on me and give me a hint as to what this means? My lack of comprehension is proving a barrier to my participation!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the most common occurence of having a fixed DM, is not exactly the same? The first time you want to do something/pick something,you get said yes/no, and that stick till the end of the campaign.Banning/allowing feats is conceptually the same as banning/allowing certain actions, at least in my view.Not really, in my view. Again, one happens before the game, the other during. That is a fairly large difference, especially if the rules were agreed upon before the game and then changed during.
It's really not. Like I said earlier, it's a 'mother may I' game, but for PF, once you have the OK for your character to exist, they can do what it says on the tin. Sure, you can ask the GM if you can take certain actions (mostly roguish stuff, like swinging on ropes, dropping chandeliers, etc), but your actions are pretty clear cut along what the game lets you do via mechanics. There's something nice about knowing that if you take the haste spell, you can give others extra attacks and so forth.
In 5e? Your actions all require more 'permission' if you're doing outside the most very basic of things. It can get tiring to ask "can I use my background skill? Can a tool do this? Can I get a bonus for this?" The system requires a lot more GM adjudication, and really, it's a system for GMs who like to have more absolute control over the game, which isn't something I'm a big fan of myself. I'm more for player empowerment in my games, which is why 5e isn't really my thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 5e? Your actions all require more 'permission' if you're doing outside the most very basic of things. It can get tiring to ask "can I use my background skill? Can a tool do this? Can I get a bonus for this?" The system requires a lot more GM adjudication, and really, it's a system for GMs who like to have more absolute control over the game, which isn't something I'm a big fan of myself. I'm more for player empowerment in my games, which is why 5e isn't really my thing.
I think we must have different definitions for player empowerment because, with a more flexible rule system, 5e can be pretty empowering for players. As has been brought up, the flip side of a feat allowing you to do something is the requirement that anyone without the feat cannot do the same thing. I find that players tend to look at their sheets more in PF to see what they can do while 5e players are trying to do things and letting the adjudication decide if they can or can't succeed at it.
Then again, I'm a GM who tries to get his players to tell me what they want their PCs to do and then I find the rule that best models the plan, rather than treat the rules as a list of what's possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no reason why you can't just smack a helpless character with non-lethal damage until they go unconscious-it may just take multiple rounds to do so, unlike the potential instant KO of a CDG.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
is there too much meta in Pathfinder?Can someone take pity on me and give me a hint as to what this means? My lack of comprehension is proving a barrier to my participation!
Oh good, it's not just me. I was lurking to see if someone addressed that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a player wish to do a nonlethal coup de grace. When I told him you needed a feat for that, he blew up and stormed out, utterly destroying any hope of anyone having fun for the rest of the game.
That's definitely one of the few problems that Pathfinder has.
See, if a player acts like that, it doesn't matter what system they're playing, they're going to eventually blow up. Can't really pin that one on rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the DC for a cliff will vary based on the nature of the surface you're climbing, which the GM makes up, so it's really not as different as it seems.
It just requires a little more effort on the GM's part to screw you.
Fair.
If like to take a second to talk about your choice of language, though.
"...the GM to screw you."
That's an interesting choice of words. It reflects how we perceive a GM changing the rules and changing the game. It's representative of a mindset for us PF players. But should it be? Why do we perceive a changing of the rules to be negative? In a solid and rock hard system with very explicit rules - like Pathfinder - we would have such a perception because changing the rules deviates from what we expect.
But in a system like 5e, where its normal, changing the rules shouldn't be seen as a negative. As a GM, I often change the rules to enhance the game and make it more fun for my players. I enable them to progress through the story and come out heroes. That's what changing the rules does in 5e. You're not screwing over the player, your enabling them for greatness. Or, you know, you're being a bad GM and screwing them over. It's easier to do in 5e, but it's still possible in PF.
Just a thought on an interesting choice of words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, it's not just me. I was lurking to see if someone addressed that.is there too much meta in Pathfinder?Can someone take pity on me and give me a hint as to what this means? My lack of comprehension is proving a barrier to my participation!
"Meta" is mostly a video game term the way it's being used here and even there it's not entirely clear what people mean when they say it. It's mostly related to theorycrafting, saying things like "X is very common in this game, so it's recommended that you have Y to counter it".
I think 99% of the time people just say it to criticize rule elements they don't like, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, it's not just me. I was lurking to see if someone addressed that.is there too much meta in Pathfinder?Can someone take pity on me and give me a hint as to what this means? My lack of comprehension is proving a barrier to my participation!"Meta" is mostly a video game term the way it's being used here and even there it's not entirely clear what people mean when they say it. It's mostly related to theorycrafting, saying things like "X is very common in this game, so it's recommended that you have Y to counter it".
I think 99% of the time people just say it to criticize rule elements they don't like, though.
I was wholly confused by the OPs use of the term and how others used it here. I've always thought "meta" meant "outside the normal understanding." So for meta to apply in PF, it's talk about players using the rules of the game to direct the actions of their haracter a rather than letting their characters' perspective control their actions. "I know he's out of AoO so I can move now" is a meta-game choice.
I guess I got my own definition from things like metaphysics. Its how I've used the term since the 90s.
Well, the DC for a cliff will vary based on the nature of the surface you're climbing, which the GM makes up, so it's really not as different as it seems.
It just requires a little more effort on the GM's part to screw you.Fair.
If like to take a second to talk about your choice of language, though.
"...the GM to screw you."
That's an interesting choice of words. It reflects how we perceive a GM changing the rules and changing the game. It's representative of a mindset for us PF players. But should it be? Why do we perceive a changing of the rules to be negative? In a solid and rock hard system with very explicit rules - like Pathfinder - we would have such a perception because changing the rules deviates from what we expect.
But in a system like 5e, where its normal, changing the rules shouldn't be seen as a negative. As a GM, I often change the rules to enhance the game and make it more fun for my players. I enable them to progress through the story and come out heroes. That's what changing the rules does in 5e. You're not screwing over the player, your enabling them for greatness. Or, you know, you're being a bad GM and screwing them over. It's easier to do in 5e, but it's still possible in PF.
Just a thought on an interesting choice of words.
That's not what I meant by it and the choice was deliberate.
If the GM wants to screw you he can. By changing the rules (or changing fiat on a whim) you can screw with players, but you can also do so completely within the explicit rules, just by how you build and run the world and adventure. Rules heavy games don't actually prevent this.
As you say, changing the rules isn't inherently bad, it's just one tool that can be used either way.
I understand you know, and I apologize for misrepresenting your words.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The DM can set DCs beforehand to screw you, so why not change them mid-game, too?" sounds like the cop who pulled me over for going 55 mph in a 45 mph zone, hitched his pistol belt, and said, "Well, I'm tellin' you it's 45 now, boy!"
The thing is, I was going 55 because that's what the speed limit sign said. If it had said 45, I'd have been going 45.
If the sign said, "Speed Limit 10 MPH," I'd have been going 10 mph, or found another way around.
Changing rules or setting DCs beforehand =/= changing them mid-game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the DC for a cliff will vary based on the nature of the surface you're climbing, which the GM makes up, so it's really not as different as it seems.
It just requires a little more effort on the GM's part to screw you.Fair.
If like to take a second to talk about your choice of language, though.
"...the GM to screw you."
That's an interesting choice of words. It reflects how we perceive a GM changing the rules and changing the game. It's representative of a mindset for us PF players. But should it be? Why do we perceive a changing of the rules to be negative? In a solid and rock hard system with very explicit rules - like Pathfinder - we would have such a perception because changing the rules deviates from what we expect.
But in a system like 5e, where its normal, changing the rules shouldn't be seen as a negative. As a GM, I often change the rules to enhance the game and make it more fun for my players. I enable them to progress through the story and come out heroes. That's what changing the rules does in 5e. You're not screwing over the player, your enabling them for greatness. Or, you know, you're being a bad GM and screwing them over. It's easier to do in 5e, but it's still possible in PF.
Just a thought on an interesting choice of words.
Just a thought I had when reading this reply. As I heartily approve of the open and friendly discussion this has been so far please understand that I am trying to express this thought in that same way.
I feel that doing what you describe, "enable them to progress through the story", in changing the game during play robs from player agency. As an example if I am playing a fighter in PF and I have scoured the books and built something that is effective and dangerous, that manages to keep pace with a Paladin or barbarian, I feel as a player that I have accomplished something. In 5th ed I am always left feeling that it is not my character or my choices that made this occur but the GM giving me permission. This to me feels like everything I do in 5th ed with the exception of direct combat actions explicitly covered such as what my AC calculates to is setup by the GM and I have little to no control.
Now I recognize I have input, but no real control, not even over what my character can do as the GM is the final arbiter of everything.
Contrast this with a system like FATE Core in which even character death must be approved by the controlling player and all actions are part of a loose form shared narrative, and hopefully I make myself plain.
Basically the reasons I do not like 5th ed are the reasons it seems like you do. Specifically GM empowerment, vague rules, and almost everything being a "Variant" all contributing to me feeling a sense of lack of player agency.
It is not bad that you like it just indicative of different tastes, but I simply wanted to express why I have the feelings I do.
P.S. Also, for full transparency I almost exclusively GM.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, it's not just me. I was lurking to see if someone addressed that.is there too much meta in Pathfinder?Can someone take pity on me and give me a hint as to what this means? My lack of comprehension is proving a barrier to my participation!"Meta" is mostly a video game term the way it's being used here and even there it's not entirely clear what people mean when they say it. It's mostly related to theorycrafting, saying things like "X is very common in this game, so it's recommended that you have Y to counter it".
I think 99% of the time people just say it to criticize rule elements they don't like, though.
It's also a CCG term, and I'm sure other things use it as well, although basically anything with a competitive side has use for the term.
Meta in this context means to view the game as a game, as we all known in the concept of 'metagaming', which is generally viewed as poor form.
In the sense of which it's being talked about in the thread title seems more like a 'metagame', which is viewing the game as a game in a mechanical sense. Like Arachnofiend said, it's seeing things from an outside perspective and being able to play around what's already known. The 'meta' as it were is the combination of all of those options, it's what makes up the 'metagame.'
For something like this, it could be "the metagame of bomber alchemist centers around taking fast bombs ASAP and using the best bomb discoveries, being X, Y, and Z!" It could also be "the best way to stop bomber alchemist is X, Y, and Z!"
It's really not what I would consider a valid term for an RPG outside of direct competitive moments such as Cheesegrinder events and such. Any game that has more than 1 option has a 'meta' though, so they're saying the game has too many options. It's an understandable point, but not one I agree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether he's improvising off the cuff or when he wrote up the adventure before hand.
Improvising off the cuff is still setting it beforehand -- you've just changed the lag time. On the other hand, guy is climbing up, you decide he's having too easy a time of it and increase the DC between checks -- not cool. Likewise adding to enemies' hp mid-combat, etc.
The DM has limited omniscience regarding what's going on, vs. the players' limited perspective. It behooves him not to abuse his power by making the world unknowable as opposed to unknown.
Why are we even talking about "Mother may I?" Every tabletop in the history of everything requires some degree of DM adjudication. Both in terms of what's allowed and what happens afterwards.
All of them.
One thing I find weird about 5e, is that I've seen people say you can do as many concepts or more than you can in PF over and over. I don't understand this when there are things like "If you play a rogue you get thieves cant, despite the fact it doesn't make any sense unless your a criminal and everyone else in the party isn't a criminal" or how ridiculously limited the number of cleric domains there are or how you can't make crafting characters or how you can't make alchemists, or how... I think you get the point. Yes, I can homebrew those things away but I don't Need to in other games, I can spend my homebrew time doing better stuff.
Why are we even talking about "Mother may I?" Every tabletop in the history of everything requires some degree of DM adjudication. Both in terms of what's allowed and what happens afterwards.
All of them.
Except 5e has it in a ridiculous surplus of "Mother May I?" compared to the amount Pathfinder has.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
One thing I find weird about 5e, is that I've seen people say you can do as many concepts or more than you can in PF over and over. I don't understand this when there are things like "If you play a rogue you get thieves cant, despite the fact it doesn't make any sense unless your a criminal and everyone else in the party isn't a criminal" or how ridiculously limited the number of cleric domains there are or how you can't make crafting characters or how you can't make alchemists, or how... I think you get the point.
I think you're confusing "5E allows many/more concepts" with "5E allows all the same concepts plus more".
In a Venn Diagram, the 5E circle doesn't have to completely envelop the PF circle in order to be the bigger circle. The fact that there's a part of the PF circle that exists outside the 5E circle does not prove that the 5E circle is smaller.
One thing I find weird about 5e, is that I've seen people say you can do as many concepts or more than you can in PF over and over. I don't understand this when there are things like "If you play a rogue you get thieves cant, despite the fact it doesn't make any sense unless your a criminal and everyone else in the party isn't a criminal" or how ridiculously limited the number of cleric domains there are or how you can't make crafting characters or how you can't make alchemists, or how... I think you get the point.I think you're confusing "5E allows many/more concepts" with "5E allows all the same concepts plus more".
In a Venn Diagram, the 5E circle doesn't have to completely envelop the PF circle in order to be the bigger circle. The fact that there's a part of the PF circle that exists outside the 5E circle does not prove that the 5E circle is smaller.
That's fair, but I struggle to come up with character concepts that 5e allows that Pathfinder does not
Could very well be my knowledge of Pathfinder being greater than my knowledge of 5e rather than anything regarding the systems.
I think you're confusing "5E allows many/more concepts" with "5E allows all the same concepts plus more".
No I've actually heard people say that repeatedly. It's... rather frustrating. At one stage there was a thread where people were meant to put ideas for new classes that could be made for 5e, and whenever people mentioned a PF class some people just dismissed it because "it can already be made".
Not all 5e players share such a view (I'd be completely amazed if such a thing were greater than even 5% of the 5e players who post online), but it is something I've heard a few times and I found it rather weird. Both games let you do different concepts better or worse than the other (for example 5e is better at doing "made a pact for power" with it's warlock compared to a sorcerer in PF taking a fiendish bloodline or being a summoner).
I think you're confusing "5E allows many/more concepts" with "5E allows all the same concepts plus more".No I've actually heard people say that repeatedly. It's... rather frustrating. At one stage there was a thread where people were meant to put ideas for new classes that could be made for 5e, and whenever people mentioned a PF class some people just dismissed it because "it can already be made".
Not all 5e players share such a view (I'd be completely amazed if such a thing were greater than even 5% of the 5e players who post online), but it is something I've heard a few times and I found it rather weird. Both games let you do different concepts better or worse than the other (for example 5e is better at doing "made a pact for power" with it's warlock compared to a sorcerer in PF taking a fiendish bloodline or being a summoner).
Isn't witch the archetypical pact for power class in pathfinder?
The thing I find kind of funny about all of this is that the guy with the build, since I've instituted CORE ONLY, isn't complaining. He's just like, "Yeah, that build was B.S., building something else now."
I guess he kind of knew this was coming.
Do not blame the game system. Blame what the players DO with the system.
If he knew it was a broken combination he should have avoided it. It is called a players responsibility to the table and the GM. Play something you enjoy but not something that ruins the enjoyment of others at the table with you.
One thing I find weird about 5e, is that I've seen people say you can do as many concepts or more than you can in PF over and over. I don't understand this when there are things like "If you play a rogue you get thieves cant, despite the fact it doesn't make any sense unless your a criminal and everyone else in the party isn't a criminal" or how ridiculously limited the number of cleric domains there are or how you can't make crafting characters or how you can't make alchemists, or how... I think you get the point. Yes, I can homebrew those things away but I don't Need to in other games, I can spend my homebrew time doing better stuff.
Probably because you keep limiting yourself to just classes and archetypes, and keep skipping the background chapter for expanding character concepts. It's the backgrounds that really drive up the number of character concepts possible. And that's just with the PHB. As more books come out, I'm sure we'll see more classes, archetypes, and backgrounds for expanded character concepts. And since there are actual rules for combining backgrounds to make something new or even designing an entirely new background (with all the mechanics involved), that expands the potential character concepts even more.
The crafting rules are on page 187 of the PHB (and for magic items it's 128 of the DMG), so I don't see why you can't make a character based around crafting. I can see how you wouldn't be able to make an alchemist akin to PF's alchemist. I may be able to come up with an alchemist character concept from literature, but it might not be akin to the PF version that has actual mechanics based around drinking potions. But the transmuter wizard does get an ability called Minor Alchemy that lets the character change the properties of items, like turning wood to silver. And there is an alchemists kit that's used in the crafting of poisons and potions that you could make a character around. And there's a background for an alchemist (under sage). So I can definitely make the a character concept around it, I just might not be able to drink potions and gain powers like PF (unless I reflavored a barbarian's rage).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the most bizarre thing to me is that in neither Pathfinder nor 5E is there a first-party option to Wildshape without spellcasting. It boggles my mind that nobody thought to write that shit down.
I think you're confusing "5E allows many/more concepts" with "5E allows all the same concepts plus more".No I've actually heard people say that repeatedly. It's... rather frustrating. At one stage there was a thread where people were meant to put ideas for new classes that could be made for 5e, and whenever people mentioned a PF class some people just dismissed it because "it can already be made".
I've heard that too and it sounds weird to me.
It seems mathematically undeniable that PF with it's larger number of choices over more customisable variables must mean you can build more distinct characters (mechanically - from a flavor perspective I think systems are indistinguishable).
One difference that people may be muddling up is that there are far fewer 'sucky' builds in 5E. So a lot of PF's choices are really theoretical rather than functionally increasing the number of options.
Personally, I still think PF allows a larger number of viable choices than 5E does (as well as a larger number of nonviable characters). But thats clearly so subjective as to be nothing more than aesthetics.
I don't think it is a case of Mother May I. Its a case of I want to do this - hard hard will it be. Bearing in mind even the hardest chance have a reasonable chance of success - as DC 20 is a high DC. The rules for setting DCs are fairly simple. The options for partial success and success at a cost makes the Skill system far more flexible in my opinion.
Isn't witch the archetypical pact for power class in pathfinder?
Eh. 5e warlock can do things like pact with a devil for power much better than a witch... Witch suffers from being too.... No flavour while super flavour focused at the same time.
Probably because you keep limiting yourself to just classes and archetypes, and keep skipping the background chapter for expanding character concepts. It's the backgrounds that really drive up the number of character concepts possible. And that's just with the PHB.
Again. No. There is nothing in that chapter that I cannot do with Pathfinder (without even using houserules) except for inspiration (though hero points can function as it rather easily).
The crafting rules are on page 187 of the PHB (and for magic items it's 128 of the DMG), so I don't see why you can't make a character based around crafting.
1 gp per day. If you don't see what's wrong with trying to make a crafter character with that I am amazed.
I think you're confusing "5E allows many/more concepts" with "5E allows all the same concepts plus more".No I've actually heard people say that repeatedly. It's... rather frustrating. At one stage there was a thread where people were meant to put ideas for new classes that could be made for 5e, and whenever people mentioned a PF class some people just dismissed it because "it can already be made".I've heard that too and it sounds weird to me.
It seems mathematically undeniable that PF with it's larger number of choices over more customisable variables must mean you can build more distinct characters (mechanically - from a flavor perspective I think systems are indistinguishable).
One difference that people may be muddling up is that there are far fewer 'sucky' builds in 5E. So a lot of PF's choices are really theoretical rather than functionally increasing the number of options.
Personally, I still think PF allows a larger number of viable choices than 5E does (as well as a larger number of nonviable characters). But thats clearly so subjective as to be nothing more than aesthetics.
I was just thinking about this on the drive home. If we define character concept as the pure number of options taken, then OF would have a lot more concepts just based on the sheer number of feats and traits. Two fighters with all the same choices except a single trait could be defined as a different build. Ergo, PF would have many more concepts to choose from.
I think my issue is that I've never thought of the feats you take as your character concept, but rather the flavor of the character itself (personality, background, etc..) which means that they have about the same. This may be due to how I design characters - I come up with a concept first and then see how to make it within the rules. So to me, the concept isn't the build.
I don't think people rage-quitting and ruining the fun of others is specific to Pathfinder, regardless of what their particular reason at the time was.I once had a player wish to do a nonlethal coup de grace. When I told him you needed a feat for that, he blew up and stormed out, utterly destroying any hope of anyone having fun for the rest of the game.
That's definitely one of the few problems that Pathfinder has.
I was responding to the notion that new rules can sometimes limit options, and affirming that this does in fact come up at the table.
I was just thinking about this on the drive home. If we define character concept as the pure number of options taken, then OF would have a lot more concepts just based on the sheer number of feats and traits. Two fighters with all the same choices except a single trait could be defined as a different build. Ergo, PF would have many more concepts to choose from.
I think my issue is that I've never thought of the feats you take as your character concept, but rather the flavor of the character itself (personality, background, etc..) which means that they have about the same. This may be due to how I design characters - I come up with a concept first and then see how to make it within the rules. So to me, the concept isn't the build.
I don't think it's things like feats either. I was thinking of stuff like background/class/archetype/race - I share Milo v3's view that PF has many more possible concepts than 5E and it's not even close (with the caveat that a lot of them are rubbish, which is a different thing).
PF has a plethora of quite different classes and races - that alone outstrips 5E in what I would consider 'genuinely different concepts'. I didn't mean things like choice of weapon or feat (unless it's two different feat chains in PF which would result in quite different concepts, imo).
The crafting rules are on page 187 of the PHB (and for magic items it's 128 of the DMG), so I don't see why you can't make a character based around crafting.1 gp per day. If you don't see what's wrong with trying to make a crafter character with that I am amazed.
I agree with the fact that crafting is not much more than an afterthought (the economy is even worse, for those looking for anything remotely simulationist), however it's 25gp per day for magic items and 5gp per day for non-magic stuff - not 1gp. (and that's cost rather than value so it's half the listed prices in the book)
A +1 weapon takes 20 8 hour days and costs 500gp by the downtime rules for crafting magic weapons.
A suit of full plate (1500gp to buy) takes 150 8 hour days and costs 750gp if you craft it yourself.
The fact that it sometimes takes longer to craft a mundane than a magical version is one of the real indications that it's not simulationist at all - all it does is provide a framework balanced by gold, there is no attempt at any 'realism' in the crafting/selling/buying rules.
I'll concede the point on concepts. The two of you have convinced me.
The crafting rules are on page 187 of the PHB (and for magic items it's 128 of the DMG), so I don't see why you can't make a character based around crafting.1 gp per day. If you don't see what's wrong with trying to make a crafter character with that I am amazed.I agree with the fact that crafting is not much more than an afterthought (the economy is even worse, for those looking for anything remotely simulationist), however it's 25gp per day for magic items and 5gp per day for non-magic stuff - not 1gp. (and that's cost rather than value)
A +1 weapon takes 20 8 hour days and costs 500gp by the downtime rules for crafting magic weapons.
A suit of full plate (1500gp to buy) takes 150 8 hour days and costs 750gp if you craft it yourself.
The fact that it sometimes takes longer to craft a mundane than a magical version is one of the real indications that it's not simulationist at all - all it does is provide a framework balanced by gold, there is no attempt at any 'realism' in the crafting/selling/buying rules.
While I haven't seen it in 5e yet, I know they wanted to bring back that 1e and 2e flavor. Back then there were modules with months of downtime planned into the adventure. This would be prime time to craft, research, or do whatever else your character may fancy. It wouldn't surprise me if 5e meant for that same kind of downtime.
In Out of the Abyss, it even says you can use downtime activities to craft while traveling through the underdark.
Yeah, downtime is clearly a thing. I think it's quite primitive (when compared to Pathfinder) though. It definitely doesn't hold up to any economic scrutiny and crafting/selling/buying is one area that people quite like a bit of 'realism' in my experience.
My issue is not one of realism, simply that it's so pathetically slow that it may as well not be in the game.
PF's crafting system isn't great, it's pretty bad, even unchained one is rather ridiculous, as it ends up faster to build more complex things rather than faster to make simple things (so it does the opposite of it's intent...).
So you know you have a bad crafting system when 3.5e/PF's horrible crafting system is better.
Another thing to note on the crafting aspect: each additional person helping contributes that same amount of value each day. That +1 sword takes one person 20 days, two people 10 days, four people 5 days, etc...
My issue is not one of realism, simply that it's so pathetically slow that it may as well not be in the game.
PF's crafting system isn't great, it's pretty bad, even unchained one is rather ridiculous, as it ends up faster to build more complex things rather than faster to make simple things (so it does the opposite of it's intent...).
So you know you have a bad crafting system when 3.5e/PF's horrible crafting system is better.
Yeah, I understood. I just wanted to correct the 1gp thing. (The realism stuff was just waffle rather than directed to your comment).
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a player wish to do a nonlethal coup de grace.
I've been allowing this for a long time - I didn't know there was a feat for it. What feat is it and/or where is it from? (Or is it just "anything that lets you deal nonlethal damage at no penalty"?)
When I told him you needed a feat for that, he blew up and stormed out, utterly destroying any hope of anyone having fun for the rest of the game.
That's definitely one of the few problems that Pathfinder has.
No offense, but... I'm not sure that Pathfinder was the problem there. :/