It seems like it's easier to ban "specific mechanics" than "books" in any case.
Like I can say "No Gunslingers, Summoners, Leadership, Blood Money, or Sacred Geometry" which is going to be a lot clearer than having to specify books.
If I specify a list like that, it permits all the options that I don't know anything about.
Maybe, if you already know what you want to ban. Some people don't want to deal with that. Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.It seems like it's easier to ban "specific mechanics" than "books" in any case.
Like I can say "No Gunslingers, Summoners, Leadership, Blood Money, or Sacred Geometry" which is going to be a lot clearer than having to specify books.
How does 5e solve this problem?
The game has gotten large enough that you can, and pretty much must, focus on portions of the rules, meaning tables really are often playing wildly different games. What is core important to one table is a "trap" at another. If you value homogeneity most, the game got too big, if you want one specific thing, maybe it just got there.
The game has gotten large enough that you can, and pretty much must, focus on portions of the rules, meaning tables really are often playing wildly different games. What is core important to one table is a "trap" at another. If you value homogeneity most, the game got too big, if you want one specific thing, maybe it just got there.
Most of that was true about five minutes after CRB was released.
I feel like "there's 10 years of books piled on a somewhat shaky foundation" is more the problem than "there's 10 years of books". Since we never went back and changed the core rules to fix some of the fundamental systemic problems with the 3.x chassis, the whole edifice became unwieldy over time.
At some level "Pathfinder is full of broken stuff" is part of the fun and the charm, as this appeals to "tinkerers" it does make the game much more of a headache to run than it needs to be.
Yes, very interesting point. Which core rules would you fix? Is PF2 better or worse? Does it fix major PF1 problems -- or just create new ones?
Yeah, I got the "ackchyually/actually" part, but what about "fedora m'lady neckbeard"?Phonetically "actually".
In this context it's usually used by jerks to talk down to people, most often women.
Person: *explains a thing*
Jerk: "Well, actually..."
It’s a variation on a meme implying that all gamers are overweight, unattractive, socially awkward men. All three items (wearing a fedora, using archaic language, and having the highly unfashionable “neckbeard” that covers the neck while leaving cheeks and upper lip bare) are considered attempts to be “interesting” by being deliberately non-mainstream. Without massive personal charisma, it can instead often come off as creepiness and obliviousness, or as trying too hard while lacking originality.
There’s also a connotation of laziness with the neckbeard. You rarely see a full, bushy, neckbeard so it instead usually looks unkempt, as if the wearer is too lazy to finish shaving.
It would be nice to just let people be what they want to be and accept them for what they are as long as no one is getting hurt.
Without knowledge of the entire system, it is impossible for a DM to restrict rules interactions that would be damaging to his campaign while allowing unfettered access to the rest of the rules.I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but do you have some examples where just patching things when they occur (i.e. vetoing a player's pick) wouldn't suffice?
To restrict content by means other than whitelisting, e.g. only these specific books or only these specific races/classes/archetypes/feats, requires the GM to be familiar with the entire body of the works.Does it? When you don't know there are firearm rules, and someone want to play a pistolero in your viking campaign, you can still say "please, no firearms in my campaign". Unless you don't look over your player's characters before starting the campaign - is that a common thing?
I actually do allow only stuff from a limited number of books (relatively speaking, it's still over 60 books), but mostly because I don't like all that regional s#*@. If a player wants to use stuff from an unallowed book, I look at the book and decide than.
I think it did - particularly with fiddly bits of some of the classes. Too many options scattered across too many sources. While that may not be much of a problem in a homegrown game where a GM can exert a lot of control, it gets to be a drag on some APs and in PFS.I actually made a spreadsheet with class options (rage powers, rogue talents, etc.) for many classes, mostly copied from AoN, for filtering and sorting purposes. Without my spreadsheets, or at least d20pfsrd/AoN, I'd be totally lost.
Don't you need to have a book or print-out of every material you use in PFS, though?Watermarked PDF, but pulling stuff up that way will slow the game down to a standstill.
I bought an iPad and PDFs; no way I am carrying 200lbs of source materials to a game.
I've been using Noggle on Windows and AndroSearch on Android to search PDFs to list which ones contain a reference to what I'm looking for. It works fairly well for spell names, items, etc. -- anything where the text your looking for is fairly unique. Then, you have a good guess in which book it first appeared.
Online web resources can be faster -- but I can find things pretty fast in the PDFs.
Yes, very interesting point. Which core rules would you fix? Is PF2 better or worse? Does it fix major PF1 problems -- or just create new ones?
So the big ones I think are:
1) Fractional Math: someone being good at something compared to bad at it means that they may progress as much as twice as fast at it, leading to bigger gulfs the higher level you play at, which creates unstable play at high levels.2) High level play invariably becomes rocket tag.
3) Full Attacking (and universal AoOs) encourage people to stand in one place and fight until no one within reach is standing, and giving a huge advantage to archers.
4) Caster/Martial disparity.
None of these were really fixable without a new edition, though some work was done on #4.
Also with the entire PF1 rules material being open content and the existence of various SRDs, the concept of books as a primary source of finding out new rules is obsolete. I am the only owner of any PF books in my gaming groups, all my players just pull out stuff from d20pfsrd/aon. The days where people used only the stuff they bought and owned physically are long behind us.
Yes, that's definitely what I'm seeing. I love to buy my stuff but most I've seen use free resources on the web. I do feel like, though, that I get a great investment when I buy the PDFs, especially now that I'm using a VTT (virtual tabletop). I also used to print my maps and pawns for local games.
Yes, very interesting point. Which core rules would you fix? Is PF2 better or worse? Does it fix major PF1 problems -- or just create new ones?So the big ones I think are:
1) Fractional Math: someone being good at something compared to bad at it means that they may progress as much as twice as fast at it, leading to bigger gulfs the higher level you play at, which creates unstable play at high levels.
2) High level play invariably becomes rocket tag.
3) Full Attacking (and universal AoOs) encourage people to stand in one place and fight until no one within reach is standing, and giving a huge advantage to archers.
4) Caster/Martial disparity.None of these were really fixable without a new edition, though some work was done on #4.
Does PF2 fix some or all of the above issues?
Also with the entire PF1 rules material being open content and the existence of various SRDs, the concept of books as a primary source of finding out new rules is obsolete. I am the only owner of any PF books in my gaming groups, all my players just pull out stuff from d20pfsrd/aon. The days where people used only the stuff they bought and owned physically are long behind us.
Goes to show how different groups are; the two groups I play in use books: Core and AGP. AP's are bought at the gaming store. we use the D20pfsrd to look things up in a hurry, but don't consider it "gospel".
oldfashoined crowd, I guess, though some are in their early 20's.
Which books do you use? I'm very interested in where people thinks "the boundary" is when it comes to which books to use - and why ...It does depends on the group and the campaing.
The pathfinder I find most comfortable with is just before the ACG, but without guns (due to mechanics not flavor) and summoner.
==================
In my last recruitment here in the forum these were the creation rules-Classes allowed: Core + APG + Magus+ unchained rogue. No summoners or gunslingers.
-Archetypes allowed: You can take any archetype of any book as long as they don't have mechanics that requires
(a) Guns
(b) ACG, occult, unchained and/or newer books.-Feats: AS with archetypes, you can take any feat as long as the feat doesn't require knowledge of the ACG, occult, etc. With this I mean that the effect of the feat has to be understandable just by reading the feat itself in the pfsrd and it doesn't require checking the aforementioned books.
-Spells: Core + APG + UC +UM.
===============
However, with my most trusted group of players I could eventually allow everything as long as the players deal with all the cumbersome mechanics. It's a pain sometimes but that's how they roll.
Does PF2 fix some or all of the above issues?
1) Fractional Math: someone being good at something compared to bad at it means that they may progress as much as twice as fast at it, leading to bigger gulfs the higher level you play at, which creates unstable play at high levels.
2) High level play invariably becomes rocket tag.
3) Full Attacking (and universal AoOs) encourage people to stand in one place and fight until no one within reach is standing, and giving a huge advantage to archers.
4) Caster/Martial disparity.None of these were really fixable without a new edition, though some work was done on #4.
Yes.
(1) PF2 gives you +1 per level to (almost) everything, so characters can't get too far ahead, or fall too far behind, in anything they're proficient in(2) High-level enemies can survive more attacks from high-level martial PCs than in PF1.
(3) Anyone can move and then attack twice in the same round in PF2.
(4) Casters are less powerful in PF2, mostly due to individual spells being reduced in power.
There are downsides to the fixes, but they solve the stated problems.
Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.How does 5e solve this problem?
Not many books, and not many player options in those books. It's been out for five years, and there's probably still fewer options for character creation than the Pathfinder Core rules.
Too big? No, probably not. But I feel their publishing priorities were poorly aligned.
I think they would have met my needs (and grabbed my disposable income) more readily with more adventures; less splat - especially crunch-less splat. I really don't need trait #72 that grants a +1 to a weak skill if you have a female hamster in your Nidalese backpack purchased on a Thursday during a Zon-kuthon holiday after 6 pm. What I wanted was 50 Dungeon magazine size adventures.
Not many books, and not many player options in those books. It's been out for five years, and there's probably still fewer options for character creation than the Pathfinder Core rules.Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.How does 5e solve this problem?
That sounds fine if the goal is "individual titles sell more copies", I guess. What happens when someone gets bored or frustrated at the lack of breadth? Or does that not happen?
On the too big issue - probably better phrased as too much uncorrelated variety - the design of Golarion is part of the problem. It's an improbable mash up of sub-genre settings: evil empire, elvish homeland, Transylvania, Thundar, lost empires, Vikings, and the Orient all right next to each other. And since Paizo never tagged their content for appropriate setting (or play style) GM's were hard-pressed to establish rails. Since you can find a gunslinger, a shaman, a ninja and an android somewhere on Golarion - the Inner Sea Region specifically - it was hard to argue there shouldn't be one of each in the player party. (Yes I know the GM can set such direction but when the game system tacitly encourages it and doesn't help the GM do it, it's harder.) And while some may find that crazy goulash fun (and it can be!) it also shows how the diverse rules and content could come together in unexpected ways that GM's had a hard time anticipating/working with.
Also with the entire PF1 rules material being open content and the existence of various SRDs, the concept of books as a primary source of finding out new rules is obsolete. I am the only owner of any PF books in my gaming groups, all my players just pull out stuff from d20pfsrd/aon. The days where people used only the stuff they bought and owned physically are long behind us.Goes to show how different groups are; the two groups I play in use books: Core and AGP. AP's are bought at the gaming store. we use the D20pfsrd to look things up in a hurry, but don't consider it "gospel".
oldfashoined crowd, I guess, though some are in their early 20's.
Hm. Nice group. Most people I've played with or know don't buy almost anything. I bought a lot of material. Makes hard for RPG to survive with such a frugal customer base.
Should PF2 expand at the same rate as PF1? Or take things a bit slower?
I wonder how much of the PF1 expansion rulebooks will be translated in some form to the new system. It could be a good opportunity to sift the wheat from the chaff -- and future PF2 rulebooks could encapsulate the best of the best from the mountain of PF1 stuff.
Yes, I think that would be a good strategy.
Does PF2 fix some or all of the above issues?
1) Fractional Math: someone being good at something compared to bad at it means that they may progress as much as twice as fast at it, leading to bigger gulfs the higher level you play at, which creates unstable play at high levels.
2) High level play invariably becomes rocket tag.
3) Full Attacking (and universal AoOs) encourage people to stand in one place and fight until no one within reach is standing, and giving a huge advantage to archers.
4) Caster/Martial disparity.None of these were really fixable without a new edition, though some work was done on #4.
Yes.
(1) PF2 gives you +1 per level to (almost) everything, so characters can't get too far ahead, or fall too far behind, in anything they're proficient in
(2) High-level enemies can survive more attacks from high-level martial PCs than in PF1.
(3) Anyone can move and then attack twice in the same round in PF2.
(4) Casters are less powerful in PF2, mostly due to individual spells being reduced in power.
There are downsides to the fixes, but they solve the stated problems.
Ok. Well, does sound like some good progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too big? No, probably not. But I feel their publishing priorities were poorly aligned.
I think they would have met my needs (and grabbed my disposable income) more readily with more adventures; less splat - especially crunch-less splat. I really don't need trait #72 that grants a +1 to a weak skill if you have a female hamster in your Nidalese backpack purchased on a Thursday during a Zon-kuthon holiday after 6 pm. What I wanted was 50 Dungeon magazine size adventures.
Yes, I very much agree with that.
That sounds fine if the goal is "individual titles sell more copies", I guess. What happens when someone gets bored or frustrated at the lack of breadth? Or does that not happen?Not many books, and not many player options in those books. It's been out for five years, and there's probably still fewer options for character creation than the Pathfinder Core rules.Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.How does 5e solve this problem?
I would have a hard time going back to D&D after Pathfinder. I played it back in the 80s and to me the core classes just seem boring. But as a GM I am having trouble with some 3rd party material people brought into my campaign. Something I plan to address soon.
I would have a hard time going back to D&D after Pathfinder. I played it back in the 80s and to me the core classes just seem boring. But as a GM I am having trouble with some 3rd party material people brought into my campaign. Something I plan to address soon.That sounds fine if the goal is "individual titles sell more copies", I guess. What happens when someone gets bored or frustrated at the lack of breadth? Or does that not happen?Not many books, and not many player options in those books. It's been out for five years, and there's probably still fewer options for character creation than the Pathfinder Core rules.Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.How does 5e solve this problem?
And maybe Gunslingers, but I need to investigate.
On the too big issue - probably better phrased as too much uncorrelated variety - the design of Golarion is part of the problem. It's an improbable mash up of sub-genre settings: evil empire, elvish homeland, Transylvania, Thundar, lost empires, Vikings, and the Orient all right next to each other. And since Paizo never tagged their content for appropriate setting (or play style) GM's were hard-pressed to establish rails. Since you can find a gunslinger, a shaman, a ninja and an android somewhere on Golarion - the Inner Sea Region specifically - it was hard to argue there shouldn't be one of each in the player party. (Yes I know the GM can set such direction but when the game system tacitly encourages it and doesn't help the GM do it, it's harder.) And while some may find that crazy goulash fun (and it can be!) it also shows how the diverse rules and content could come together in unexpected ways that GM's had a hard time anticipating/working with.
Yes, Paizo kind of messed it up by trying to be everything to everyone and some of the third party stuff looks like it was selling itself (in other words making money) by creating classes or races that upset game balance by being way too powerful versus core classes and races. I'm pretty sure they knew they were doing that. Now, you can find this material for free, so there's some part of the lifecycle I don't understand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is value, however, to making a sandbox that people can use to tell basically any kind of fantasy story they want. Just leave tables to decide that certain things don't fit certain games so players should pick something else (but in a future game that particular idea might work great).
That sounds fine if the goal is "individual titles sell more copies", I guess. What happens when someone gets bored or frustrated at the lack of breadth? Or does that not happen?Not many books, and not many player options in those books. It's been out for five years, and there's probably still fewer options for character creation than the Pathfinder Core rules.Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.How does 5e solve this problem?
They switch to Pathfinder.
But many players don't get frustrated by the lack of mechanical character-building depth, because they've never had it, and don't think of it as a major component of role-playing games. A dozen classes (with about three archetypes per class) is enough for most people. You could play 5e for ten years without repeating yourself.
I think there is value, however, to making a sandbox that people can use to tell basically any kind of fantasy story they want. Just leave tables to decide that certain things don't fit certain games so players should pick something else (but in a future game that particular idea might work great).
Yes, totally true. Gives the GM the ability to have games in a much wider choice of settings. Could do a western if you want, for example.
I'd have to say that in my experience, no it didn't get too big. I never had a problem with my players using the PFSRD for look for feats, spells, etc. If a a strange rules interaction came up and it occasionally did, it was never more difficult to fix than to say "gimme a sec to think." I don't even really understand the source of the dislike some people have.
Yes, very interesting point. Which core rules would you fix? Is PF2 better or worse? Does it fix major PF1 problems -- or just create new ones?So the big ones I think are:
1) Fractional Math: someone being good at something compared to bad at it means that they may progress as much as twice as fast at it, leading to bigger gulfs the higher level you play at, which creates unstable play at high levels.
2) High level play invariably becomes rocket tag.
3) Full Attacking (and universal AoOs) encourage people to stand in one place and fight until no one within reach is standing, and giving a huge advantage to archers.
4) Caster/Martial disparity.None of these were really fixable without a new edition, though some work was done on #4.
I started thinking more about #3. Shouldn't archers have that advantage?
They don't have to move. Just pick a target and shoot. Seems like a natural advantage over a melee fighter, when movement is needed to select a new target.
That sounds fine if the goal is "individual titles sell more copies", I guess. What happens when someone gets bored or frustrated at the lack of breadth? Or does that not happen?Not many books, and not many player options in those books. It's been out for five years, and there's probably still fewer options for character creation than the Pathfinder Core rules.Some people will just hear about all the broken things and will not bother learning, they will just go 5e.How does 5e solve this problem?They switch to Pathfinder.
But many players don't get frustrated by the lack of mechanical character-building depth, because they've never had it, and don't think of it as a major component of role-playing games. A dozen classes (with about three archetypes per class) is enough for most people. You could play 5e for ten years without repeating yourself.
Breadth isn't just about increasing replayability. It's also about having the tools to realize a character concept. Pathfinder obviously doesn't cover everything, but I can realize a hell of a lot of concepts in it. Contrast with, e.g., 1E, in which characters were practically preconstructed--the only real choice was class (which was enslaved to your ability score rolls) and what to spend your starting gold on.
TL;DR: Being able to play for ten years without repeating yourself doesn't help much if the only options available aren't things you'd actually want to play.
While I still prefer a game a (houseruled pathfinder) to 5e, I have the feeling that the rate of first time players that felt disappointed with their characters is way lower in 5e than in PF.
True, but it is also true that the more you play RPGs the more "demanding" you become. In 5e it is so hard to make underpowered character that there are almost no bad choices, beside some obvious stuff like dumping all your phisical attributes for martial classes etc. It has gone to the point that a group of newcomers to 5e can beat the crap out of encounters that would normally pose a threat to even experienced players in Pathfinder.
I often run games for newcomers; both Pathfinder and 5e. D&D is easy to DM and easy to get into for new players, while PF at the same time is significatly harder, but people grasp basic rules fairly easily too. I've noticed that on average Pathfinder is waaaay more deadly than 5e across almost all ALL levels, unless you have some seriously optimized characters in Pathfinder, which is usually not the case with new players. You can still make more impactful characters in Pathfinder, but that often requires some level of system mastery.
Quiet recently I had a pretty good comparsion between two groups playing the same adventure in two different systems (PFRPG & D&D 5e). At level three both groups of five players decided to engage Aboleth in its lair without getting any outside help. 5e group was made of paladin (ancient oath), monk, wizard (diviner), thief and fighter(arcane archer), while Pathfinder group was made of two fighters (one was 2h-weapon fighter that often kept critting for over 50 damage, the other one was build around combat maneouvers and reach fighting), wizard (conjurer <- very experienced PF player), warpriest and inquisitor (made to be flying archer).
Result? 5e group managed to kill aboleth with their paladin seriously wounded, while PF group had to evacuate in order to save themselves from TPK. One guy died in that group (2h-weapon user), the other was seriously injured. Aboleth almost died as well, but when he retreated into the water then they couldn't really reach him, while he still could engage them with his spells and abilities. Funny thing is that in 5e Aboleth is CR10 and he had access to legendary and lair abilities, while in PF it is only CR7. That being said, I have to admit that 5e group had more luck on dices, especially when it came to saving throws.
So yeah... This is how I see 5e. Competetive heroes from very beginning to the point that beyond level 1 it is no more a game from zero to hero. Almost every choice is optimal (some less, some more) to the point that there is no fun in leveling for me, as I don't really see a challenge in building your dream character. Some people like it this simple, but I don't. 5e to me is like POP music; it may be unimaginitive, but most people seem to enjoy it.
I've heard this comment so many times, and everytime I point out that only the Core Rulebook is required -- all the others are optional.
However, a number of people have said that PF1 is too hard to GM.
Probably, because players bring in all those books?
I, personally, don't have an issue with it. I use PDF files and load all the books I need into a PDF reader.
I found that having references to so many books actually helped -- because that let me navigate to the exact page(s) I needed in those books without even having to worry about setting bookmarks and doing further navigation within those books.
Hero Lab greatly reduces player needs to reference the Core Rulebook, especially by printing spell descriptions.
I'm heart broken that it is so hard to find players today. I think PF1 is the best RPG ever created.
Is PF2 being developed to address this problem? Less books, more adventure?
I DMed D&D 3.5 games before jumping to PF1, so... it didn't feel hard to me.
I will say that it can be a bit intimidating, but unlike D&D, many of the core rulebooks for PF1 are available online, swapping your 1,001 books for a web browser on your smartphone.
As for PF2, if I had to guess why they're doing it, it's because the D20 system (the rule system Paizo has been using) is almost 20 years old and it's a little... dated. There is a LOT of rules that their 2nd edition will streamline and simplify in order to keep the rules easy to understand and apply. It's like vulgarizing a long scientific theory in a single sentence: it may be short, but at least it keeps its meaning.
Without starting any "edition war" or such, PF2 feels like a proper upgrade than what I've seen for D&D. They are simplifying the rules, but they're not changing them. They are nerfing a lot of stuff, but it's still work the same. You have 3 iterative attacks now instead of 2, 3 or 4 depending on one too many factors, but at least you still have iterative attacks. They're not rebooting Pathfinder, they are upgrading it to a more modern ruleset. In fact, they keep their storyline that the APs have esteblished, as well as their iconic characters.
I started thinking more about #3. Shouldn't archers have that advantage?
They don't have to move. Just pick a target and shoot. Seems like a natural advantage over a melee fighter, when movement is needed to select a new target.
Well, the issue comes in how many more attacks an archer who is standing in place can make compared to the person who has to run up and poke them. Depending on the distance the archer should have an advantage, sure, but if it's a single round's movement between them we have situations where an archer can get off six shots, and the charging warrior can make one attack. Where archers should have an significant advantage is when people are really quite far away from each other, not versus someone who is 10' away.
Or to put it another way, getting pounce on a martial is an enormous boost to DPR, but only certain classes or builds have access to pounce. So if your idea for a barbarian is one with a totem which is not Beast totem, your DPR drops precipitously. A chained monk is much, much better off with unarmed (which lets you get pummeling charge) than using weapons (except for archer monks.)
If I roll up say "a dwarf fighter with a hammer" my best options for combat are "stand in one place so I can make many attacks" or "move and attack once." Builds like that shouldn't be vastly inferior to specific mechanical combinations that let you move and full attack.
I started thinking more about #3. Shouldn't archers have that advantage?
They don't have to move. Just pick a target and shoot. Seems like a natural advantage over a melee fighter, when movement is needed to select a new target.
Well, the issue comes in how many more attacks an archer who is standing in place can make compared to the person who has to run up and poke them. Depending on the distance the archer should have an advantage, sure, but if it's a single round's movement between them we have situations where an archer can get off six shots, and the charging warrior can make one attack. Where archers should have an significant advantage is when people are really quite far away from each other, not versus someone who is 10' away.
Or to put it another way, getting pounce on a martial is an enormous boost to DPR, but only certain classes or builds have access to pounce. So if your idea for a barbarian is one with a totem which is not Beast totem, your DPR drops precipitously. A chained monk is much, much better off with unarmed (which lets you get pummeling charge) than using weapons (except for archer monks.)
If I roll up say "a dwarf fighter with a hammer" my best options for combat are "stand in one place so I can make many attacks" or "move and attack once." Builds like that shouldn't be vastly inferior to specific mechanical combinations that let you move and full attack.
I see. So, for the 10' away melee attacker scenario, seems like the only real solution is to try to be more realistic and allow unused fractional actions to be allocated to another action type. In other words, because really only a small part of a move action was used, the remainder of that action should be applied to the standard action to allow more attacks because that is what would happen in real life.
I can't think of any other satisfactory way to solve this problem. Seems like any other solution would just result in other problems.
So, for the 10' away melee attacker scenario, seems like the only real solution is to try to be more realistic and allow unused fractional actions to be allocated to another action type. In other words, because really only a small part of a move action was used, the remainder of that action should be applied to the standard action to allow more attacks because that is what would happen in real life.
I can't think of any other satisfactory way to solve this problem.
5e's solution is to always allow a full attack whether you move or not. That works pretty well as long as 'full attack' isn't too powerful.
PF2's solution is that you can stand still and attack at +0/-5/-10, or move up to your movement distance and attack at +0/-5, or move up to twice your movement distance and attack at +0.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breadth isn't just about increasing replayability. It's also about having the tools to realize a character concept. Pathfinder obviously doesn't cover everything, but I can realize a hell of a lot of concepts in it. Contrast with, e.g., 1E, in which characters were practically preconstructed--the only real choice was class (which was enslaved to your ability score rolls) and what to spend your starting gold on.
TL;DR: Being able to play for ten years without repeating yourself doesn't help much if the only options available aren't things you'd actually want to play.
Techniques for coping with this issue in a system without much breadth:
(1) Have character concepts based on personality, not game mechanics. One of my characters was a barely restrained psychopath who has sworn loyalty to another member of the party and would sometimes ask permission to do horrific things, and sigh in disappointment when they refused. Another of my characters had progressive amnesia and wrote a campaign journal to act as a surrogate memory; she spoke and wrote only in the present tense, because she had lost her sense of past and future. This is more memorable than their race and class.
(2) Be flexible, not fussy. Most players could have fun playing with a human fighter (again), as long as the adventure is interesting and they're hanging out with people they enjoy hanging out with.
(3) Have a flexible GM. "So, you want to play as a frog-girl martial artist who can attack with her super-long tongue? How about we take the monk, and replace the spend a ki point for two extra attacks ability with spend a ki point for one extra attack with 15-foot reach and the ability to a make free grapple attempt if you hit your opponent? And instead of spend a ki point to not provoke Opportunity Attacks and to double your jumping distance we'll make it quadrupled jumping distance. Anything else you need?"
Pathfinder also fails to realize several concepts and others, while possible, are quite hard make work without a lot of system mastery.
Of course, but to a far different degree.
While I still prefer a game a (houseruled pathfinder) to 5e, I have the feeling that the rate of first time players that felt disappointed with their characters is way lower in 5e than in PF.
On what basis? Does this account for people who never start playing once they find out about the limited character creation options, or are we selecting only for players who make it through their first few sessions?
