I've only played a little 5E, but I thought it was well-designed overall and enjoyable. It definitely has major weaknesses, foremost among them being lack of character customization, but it does some things right.
So, what are your favorite parts of 5E? How would you like to see similar concepts show up in PF2e?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primary reason why my group plays 5e instead of Pathfinder is that in 5e, it is more difficult to make a ridiculously overpowered character. My group tries to be roleplay first, and in Pathfinder, it is too tempting to over optimize. 5e's power curve seems more "flat", in that characters don't get as strong as they level, and there's generally no way to achieve ability scores over 20, skill modifiers that are super high, etc. I REALLY like this, as it means that there isn't as ton of a difference between a perfectly optimized character and a character that was made more with roleplaying in mind. I would love for a similar design philosophy to affect PF2e.
What I really MISS about PF, as a 5e player, is the character customization, and the crunchiness of the rules.
Is it even *possible* to have all the great rules complexity and options of pathfinder AND the avoidance of min max hell of 5e? I hope so, but I doubt it lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any resemblance to 5e would be a negative aspect of PF 2e for me.
I'm really struggling to think of anything that I like from 5e after playing it for years.
Ummm the art was nice? Page layout was modern in technique but maintained a more rustic feel.
Ah a trinket table. We had campaigns spin off from something in someone's pocket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three major mechanics, at least one of which I'm sure will not be coming, but revised action economy is a happy middle ground for it.
1: Movement in your first speed increment not being an action. Though as said, action economy is a happy middle ground. I'd be happier if I use a move action for my 30 speed, move say 10 of it, use my second action for an attack, third action to tumble and avoid an AoO as I use the remaining 10 (20 halved using normal tumble rules) to get away. Less chess-like movement, more flow.
2: Ranged attacks within 5 ft don't provoke. One of my biggest pet peeves. If you're shooting a target right in front of you, said target should not get an AoO. With revising actions, the 5-foot-step management becomes more of a slow down. Treat a ranged within 5 with a penalty, but not a punch in the face unless the target has a specific reaction to it.
Also to add to AoO stuff, melee spells like Shocking Grasp should not provoke to cast. They're intended for melee combat and I think doing away with defensive casting would make melee mages more fun/viable compared to their AoE save-attacking counterparts.
3: Finesse built in to weapons. Not needing to devote a third of a dex character to feats is really nice. I'd love to see it either built into the relevant weapons. I'd say or class options, but I'm a fan of less restrictions. You wanna be a finesse fighter, go ahead, wanna be a finesse sorc, go ahead.
Final extra point, there's already a thread on it I took part in arguing to the hills on. Open Paladin alignment. I played a Lawful Neutral Paladin in 5th and it was a really good time. Whether within 1 step of their deity (and people will argue then be a cleric or warpriest, but paladins are divine characters. They need a holy symbol focus for most of their spells, they do have a deity by the current systems standards), or different oaths based on alignments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Soem things I like about 5e:
* The sense that I'm in control as GM. When there are no rules for something, I just have to make them up. It takes some getting used to, but I like it now.
* Melee PCs aren't punished for moving about the battlefield (by loss of full attacks, frequent AoOs, etc.)
* Bounded AC / Accuracy means that 'can only hit on a natural 20' isn't likely to happen.
* Teleport isn't available until very high-level play; having access to it at level 9 in Pathfinder causes too many kinds of story (race against time, escape from the underground lair, etc.) to break down.
* Quick character creation.
* A high-level PC needs no magic items to be effective.
* Sudden death is less common.
* Monster and NPC stat blocks are easy to understand. I don't have to look up what all their feats do; it's all there in front of me.
But: I don't think Pf2e should do most of these things. Sometimes it's nice to play a game where magic item shop prices are set in stone, and sometimes it's nice to play a game where magic item shops are rare or nonexistent. I'd rather have two games filling different niches than competing over the same niche.
(Melee characters being able to move around would be an improvement, though.)
Legendary Actions/Resistances and by extension Lair Actions. Supremely elegant way of making the lone boss monster actually a viable fight without it simply drowning to action economy.
These sound really interesting, but I never came across them. Do you mind elaborating on Legendary Actions, Legendary Resistances, and Lair Actions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legendary and Lair actions for boss monsters. The action economy favors the side with the most actions, so in PF1, it's hard to balance a singular enemy that can stand up to an entire party. In PF2's new action economy, this could be as simple as letting certain monsters take more actions per turn, or giving them additional reactions.
De-emphasized alignment system. Arguments about alignment are always long and pointless, because it can be interpreted in so many ways that it's always going to come down to personal preference.
Magic items that are about cool powers instead of a +1. It looks like this is a design goal of PF2 already. I think the Unchained Automatic Bonus Progression rule was a good idea, but I never got a chance to try it out. I'll be happy to see the "Big Six" go and open up more options.
Stronger cantrips. Casters can actually cast all the time, starting from 1st level.
I liked the idea of Bounded Accuracy in concept, but I don't think it's a good fit for Pathfinder. I'd like to see some changes in PF2's number crunching for high level play, but what exactly that would look like is out of my expertise.
Legendary Actions/Resistances and by extension Lair Actions. Supremely elegant way of making the lone boss monster actually a viable fight without it simply drowning to action economy.These sound really interesting, but I never came across them. Do you mind elaborating on Legendary Actions, Legendary Resistances, and Lair Actions?
Some of the big, important, flashy monsters (dragons of adult age category and higher, for example) have Legendary Actions. These are a small list of unique extra actions that the creature can perform when it's not its turn.
When a monster has Legendary Actions, it also has Legendary Resistance, which just means it can choose to succeed at any save 3 times per day. Prevents the monster from being one-shotted by Save-or-Die effects.
There are also Lair Actions, in addition to Legendary Actions. They are also a unique list of extra actions, similar to Legendary Actions, but happen on either Initative 10 or 20 every round. This means fighting a monster on its home turf is more dangerous.
Here's a Red Dragon statblock to look at. https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Adult%20Red%20Dragon#content
If there is some way to gain more than one reactions then I think we basically have legendary actions confirmed:
From the First Look at the Playtest Blog:
"Many classes and monsters have different things they can do with their reactions, making each combat a little bit less predictable and a lot more exciting. Cast a fire spell near a red dragon, for example, and you might just find it takes control of your magic, roasting you and your friends instead of the intended target!"
I like vancian and limited casting so I didnt like the idea of unlimited cantrips in 5E. In practice, however, I found that the scaling cantrip acts like a basic attack and allows the caster to use their spell slots for interesting utility/control/buff spells instead.
Bounded accuracy takes away the math treadmill and makes for a more immersive world. I think there is a lot of room to play with how the 5E system came out though. For instance, skills and saves could use another turn on the drawing board.
5E Backgrounds are cool and flavorful, but utterly lacking in options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot i like about 5e, some things i'd like to stay there because i ALSO want a game to do them differently, but the ones i could happily see carried over are:
1 - Movement is separate from actions unless you want to go beyond your base speed.
2 - No 5-foot step but also no opportunity attacks from anything other than leaving someones reach.
3 - Free movement withoput AoOs within someone's reach.
4 - No distinction between single attacks and full attacks.
All of the above make the game much more dynamic on the battlefield you can move and position yourself without being punished either by an enemy or by your own inability to attack.
5 - Concentration curbing spellcasters without weakening spells and reducing the pre battle buff-routine.
6 - Damage cantrips being a useful default option when you dont want to expend resources. As opposed to being a joke.
7 - Finesse giving dax to both attack and damage and not requiring a feat tax. To someone coming from Pathfinder 1e this might sound terribly unbalanced, because of how much Dex does, but it actually works fine within the 5e system. Stength has its own rewards, one of them being actually a higher AC, because light armor + maximum dexterity doesn't reach as high as a full suit of plate without a dex bonus, better base weapon damage and giving its bonus to things like grapple and trip, which are viable without feats in the system.
8 - Relatively low bonuses at the high end of play and the lack of "trained only" skills make gameplay more interactive, because everyone can take part in an activity that requires skill checks.
9 - Casting in melee can be done freely, only trying to make a ranged spell attack roll while in melee will cause you to have disadvantage. But still a primary caster has good reasons to keep out of melee beyond being relatively squishy, as they will probably have a concentration spell to maintain.
10 - Lower damage output. I wasn't a fan of pathfinder's rocket tag. Fights last a couple of rounds, allowing for players to make tactical decisions and gauge their enemies before the battle is over.
11 - Legendary creatures. Having a set of rules that allows a single monster to compete against a party of adventurers rather than feeling like it just stands around waiting to get killed. Coupled with the previous point, you can actually make a single dragon an interesting boss encounter.
12 - Prepared casters don't prepare each spell slot individually and then forget how to cast the spell once theyve cast it, but instead choose a number of spells to prepare and can then basically use the ones they prepared the same way a spontaneous caster uses their entire spells-known list.
13 - Unified casting progression. No spell level delay on spontaneous casters and when you multiclass between different caster classes, you still have the same max slot level as a single class caster, but you have to fill them with lower level spells (which become stronger as you cast them at higher slot levels, rather than becoming stronger with your caster level)
I think that covers it. Most of the other differences in 5e I consider sidegrades and a few are downgrades in my book but those aren't what this thread is asking for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked how cantrips were always relevant, but that's about it.
Having monsters and PCs work different means I have to learn twice as much stuff to GM, and can feel like the monsters are "cheating." Class balance was OK, but there were some classes that were just better and it was kinda dull for the most part. I did not like how everything had pounce, that really killed it for me because every fight against a 4-armed monkey was "who wants to make a new character today?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having monsters and PCs work different means I have to learn twice as much stuff to GM, and can feel like the monsters are "cheating." Class balance was OK, but there were some classes that were just better and it was kinda dull for the most part. I did not like how everything had pounce, that really killed it for me because every fight against a 4-armed monkey was "who wants to make a new character today?"
I had quite a different experience. Running precreated monsters in 5e is incredibly easy because everything you need to know about the monster is right there in its statblock except the specific description of its spells. The only thing that was only implied is its proficiency bonus which is usually easy to determine by subtracting the ability mod from any skill, save or attack bonus it has listed.
In pathfinder monster statblocks neglect to show you the various traits and features intrinsic to the monster's creature type, so you have to either learn those by heart, or look them up.Making monsters is also very easy in 5e, because the rules are extremely simple: Proficiency bonus is based on total CR, Hit dice are based on size. Go nuts. You get to decide if, how many and which skill and save proficiencies needs and gets, what it is immune and resistant to and whether it should have to eat sleep and breathe.
In Pathfinder again you have to look up the creature types traits and features because they basically function like a class without features beyond first level but a lot of baggage ON that first level. You are tethered to the creature type and how its BAB, save bonuses and skill ranks per HD work the entire way through having to meticulously construct it, rather than just aiming for a rough number laying the groundworks and then just adding what you like.
fianlly the way CR is calculated is fairly easy and function to balance the creature well enough.
I've had play up to level 8 with almost every class now and none gave off the impression of being appreciably better on the whole than others. Meanwhile in PF we have had C/MD discussions all the way through the edition's lifespan.
As for multiattack and "everythign having pounce", this is an issue that I can only see coming up when someone overly relies on CR to balance an encounter, it's alsways good to look at how much damage a monster can realistically deal to one player within one round and make sure that that number is not higher than your average PC's HP max.
I frequently run very high stake monster encounters that tax the players' resources in my games and only once did i unexpectedly kill a PC, and that was not because of "pounce", it was actually a single crit with a really high damage roll, while the player in question was already moderately wounded.
|
|
maybe the 4 armed monkeys just left a bad taste in my mouth, but other than the pounciness of it and some different movement things combat on a whole was OK.
The monsters though, I dunno. I like the rules and different types and whatnot - I prep at least 3 days in advance so needing a monster fast has never been an issue with me (when making something custom), if I really need something on the spot that's what Bestiaries are for, right?
As for classes, the 5E paladin (at least the one's I've played with) were just better than the rest of us - unlike Pathfinder he didn't even have bad skills to make him less versatile because we all sucked at skills.
I have found over time that 5e is perhaps my most hated D&D system ever.
Bounded accuracy, especially with how limited they made it (+6 max prof bonus) and how across the board it is (all get a +6 and advance equally in weapons) nullifying differences between how fast a Fighter learns compared to a wizard...are things I particularly cannot stand.
If PF2e takes that from 5e, it is probably a guarantee that I will never play PF2e. (probably does not mean absolutely, there is still a chance I might like it, but my perspective right now can't see how that would be possible...I truly abhore what they did with this idea of bounded accuracy in 5e).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Said it in another of the threads here, but kinda realized after hiw much I like it. 6 saves. One fir each ability (unnamed). Makes the non-save skills feel less dump-able by adding more use. Also takes a little from Dex by making not every major damage spell go after Reflex/Dex.
The only thing in 5E I actually like is the Short Rest thing. That's it; the only thing. Everything else is inferior to Pathfinder, and I hope they use none of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Speeds up gameplay so much more than circumstance mods. After all, you don't exactly have to count how many advantages and disadvantages you have, given that you can only have one and that they cancel each other out if you have multiples of each.
This is one of those single things that would almost certainly chase me away from New 'n' Pathy! if they implemented it here.
What do I like from 5E that I wish they'd implement here? Beats me. I don't play 5E. I never have. I looked into it, and it didn't appeal to me from a mechanical standpoint. I ended up sticking with Pathfinder because it had what 5E didn't.
Any resemblance to 5e would be a negative aspect of PF 2e for me.
I'm right there with you. Anything even close will 'poison the well' for me.
I have found over time that 5e is perhaps my most hated D&D system ever.
Bounded accuracy, especially with how limited they made it (+6 max prof bonus) and how across the board it is (all get a +6 and advance equally in weapons) nullifying differences between how fast a Fighter learns compared to a wizard...are things I particularly cannot stand.
If PF2e takes that from 5e, it is probably a guarantee that I will never play PF2e. (probably does not mean absolutely, there is still a chance I might like it, but my perspective right now can't see how that would be possible...I truly abhore what they did with this idea of bounded accuracy in 5e).
Oh boy, yes. I went through the playtest for 5e and each and every survey turned the game further and further away from what I wanted in a game. Bounded accuracy is particularly bad IMO.
Advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Speeds up gameplay so much more than circumstance mods. After all, you don't exactly have to count how many advantages and disadvantages you have, given that you can only have one and that they cancel each other out if you have multiples of each.This is one of those single things that would almost certainly chase me away from New 'n' Pathy! if they implemented it here.
What do I like from 5E that I wish they'd implement here? Beats me. I don't play 5E. I never have. I looked into it, and it didn't appeal to me from a mechanical standpoint. I ended up sticking with Pathfinder because it had what 5E didn't.
Yeah, Advantage/disadvantage was another 'gem' I really disliked about the game. Really it's all... just awful IMO.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of objections to the "bounded accuracy" of 5e. As I understand it, that was implemented to curb the powergaming/minmaxing that is common in Pathfinder. Do you guys not see the minmaxing as a problem, or is bounded accuracy just not your preferred way to fix it?
|
|
Why is it a problem? should the Hero of Varisia/Tian Xia/Arcadia not have a specific set of skills that make him very good at slapping a Runelord/Drow/Abomination in the nads?
Honestly, I see Min/Maxing as a puzzle - I like those puzzles, they are fun (for me). Getting to see that Rube-Gold-Character in action is also fun (and if it really ruins your fun to play with that character just be an adult and talk to me), but a lot of people forget the Min in Min/Max - there is a tradeoff in versatility, which is why we have a party to adventure with. Furthermore, optimizing is just kinda something people do - it's in our nature to a certain extent and curbing it hard just turns people away.
IF avoiding sky-high modifiers is the goal though: I don't like bounded accuracy for it. I played 5E at level 4 and level 14, and the only difference was that there were more giants and I could attack 1-2 more times and cast Misty Step. I didn't feel stronger or weaker, just like I had 2 more options and that the friend who built my character should have told me that nets suck. capping my growth didn't feel fun, especially when the challenge felt the same either way.
I'm seeing a lot of objections to the "bounded accuracy" of 5e. As I understand it, that was implemented to curb the powergaming/minmaxing that is common in Pathfinder. Do you guys not see the minmaxing as a problem, or is bounded accuracy just not your preferred way to fix it?
Oh yes. Minmaxing in PF/3.X was/is a huge problem. It was even in 4e (which I ran as part of the D&D Encounters program back in the day, Pre-PFS. My local store still doesn't do PFS, but now have AL). "Bounded Accuracy" is an alright solution in 5e's case, however I understand it's limitations and why some players dislike it. It feels like you don't really get better (as 5e progresses very slowly), and there aren't feats or anything to spice it up.
However, devil's advocate counter arguement to my explanation. It is better than needing to devote most of a character to being able to hit. Dex characters are very min-maxable in PF, but all (or most) require weapon finesse, some damage ability, and a miriad of offensive feats to enable their playstyle. Before they have those, they feel underwhelming and unable to contribute. This is I think why there are so many "guides" to getting as much as possible level 1.
Perhaps it's personal opinion, but I believe character concept and fun should come before needing to micro-manage every level to be playable. Bounded accuracy takes some of the pressure of that. So it is a double edged sword. More player freedom, for less feeling of building success.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.
In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.
In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!
When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).
In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of objections to the "bounded accuracy" of 5e. As I understand it, that was implemented to curb the powergaming/minmaxing that is common in Pathfinder. Do you guys not see the minmaxing as a problem, or is bounded accuracy just not your preferred way to fix it?
Both? I generally don't have an issue with powergaming/minmaxing: As a DM, as long as everyone in a group is at the same level of optimization, it's easy enough to shift DC's and monster CR's to 'fix'. As a player, I keep my power curve around the level of the others in the group.
As to bounded accuracy, it's just, just superbad. GreyWolfLord said it well: there is NO sense of achievement or progress. A level 1 character can out skill check a 20th level character, and that 20th level character can even fail at checks that the game suggests are so easy you shouldn't normally need to have the players roll [like making a nail/arrow].
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best things about 5e was the introduction of Legendary and Lair actions. It completely removed the problem with action economy when a party faces a single foe.
Even if Paizo doesn't introduce it, it's something I'll be using in my games. The ability to have a BAMF get extra actions outside of their turn within their own lair really amps up the challenge and fun of the game.
That way, my individual boss doesn't have to be so powerful that his one turn per round needs to make a dent. I can spread it out and make him individually less powerful while making the entire encounter a challenge.
Whats the working definition of hero here? Guy who can slaughter a million goblins without breaking a sweat? That sounds more like supers than heroes. If i fought iron mike tyson he'd whip my ass. If iron mike fought me and 9 of my buddies he'd get beat. I think Mark mentioned this same line of thought earlier. You are either cool with being super or you are not. Paizo is cool with it so there is no worry about BA in PF2.
I'm seeing a lot of objections to the "bounded accuracy" of 5e. As I understand it, that was implemented to curb the powergaming/minmaxing that is common in Pathfinder. Do you guys not see the minmaxing as a problem, or is bounded accuracy just not your preferred way to fix it?
I've never found it to be a problem.
Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcasting, and that's a good thing.
From there it's got abilities to enhance it and cast more than once baked into the action system.
This is good, I think it's way better than 5e.
I like about 99% of 5th edition D&D. I'm not sure what parts I'd like to see in Pathfinder, though, because I prefer it when the systems do their own thing.
If I had to pick one thing from 5th edition, I guess it would be that the way they have wizards cast spells (preparing a pool instead of memorizing a specific number of individual spells) is pretty close to the way I've houseruled it since the AD&D days.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.
In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.
In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!
When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).
In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...
So you really think that in 5e a group of five goblins could take down a single ninth level PC? Because that's not true. A group of twenty five may be a challenge, depending on circumstances - at ninth level a party is looking at a hundred goblins as a theoretically dangerous encounter. But, tbh, most parties would still cream that many. Bounded accuracy extends the range enemies are relevant, but not forever.
The skill check thing is very relevant tho, outside of bards and rogues the d20 is most of the result. Max ability is twenty, so +11 without expertise doubling proficiency bonus. The plus side to this is that DCs don't go so high that you can't give it a try, if proficient. I play 5e but have used 2d10 for skill checks to make the die less important.
I like about 99% of 5th edition D&D. I'm not sure what parts I'd like to see in Pathfinder, though, because I prefer it when the systems do their own thing.
If I had to pick one thing from 5th edition, I guess it would be that the way they have wizards cast spells (preparing a pool instead of memorizing a specific number of individual spells) is pretty close to the way I've houseruled it since the AD&D days.
Yeah. There's a lot of 5e that I love, but it just doesn't seem to fit well in PF.
One thing I'd love to see, though, is all the classes falling into Tier 3 like all the 5e classes do.
Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcasting
This is tongue-in-cheek, right?
Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?
Not according to Logan, apparently.
Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?
Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
They pretty much confirmed the similarities, by saying it's one of the things they found out on their own Erik went on quite the rant about it.
Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?
No, it's a quote from Mark
As a second aside, Logan and Erik were correct that the spell system's genesis came without reading 5e. This is because we actually had that part in place before 5e came out (we've really been working on this a long time!)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I like most about D&D 5th edition is just the toning down of the huge numbers that rolled around in the 3rd edition era and lived on for over a decade. Running games where people and monsters were roaming about with over +20 to hits or saves or AC's in the 40's got to be just way too much.
Now someone in full plate armor is reasonably well protected even at higher levels. Plus when you do get a bonus it feels much more rewarding.
It's something I hope Pathfinder persues as well. Tone things freaking down a couple dozen notches. Just +1 per level is too much.
Also lower the freaking skill check DC's while you're at it. It felt like everything was 15+ at the lowest in the first edition.