Pathfinder vs. Next/5th

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I agree that 3.5 has a lot of classes where you don't really gain much, but you're always getting skillpoints, at the very least. Pathfinder worked really hard to get rid of dead levels and uninteresting abilities, and many PF classes don't really suffer from that problem as a result. There's still kinks, but not every levelup should be game changing, so I find them largely acceptable.

3.5 also got better with class features in the non-PHB classes.

The problem with the no dead levels is that they didn't give really anything good. Plus they gave casters more class features as if they needed it haha

Pathfinder had so much potential but it was wasted. I don't think a single full BAB class gets above tier 4, and even then all I can think of is the Barbarian and Ranger who both have so many problems that weren't adressed .*

* actually a freebooter something or other ranger (freebooter + another archetype) gets rid of some of the problems with ranger to a point I want to play one. I almost forgot about that 1 tier 4 class that wasn't messed up and easily countered.

Tome of Battle was awesome but never supported and last I saw from PF is that a 3rd party picked up ToB.

Skill points and feat chains don't make up for class features and spells. At least the 5e fighter has some class features and the rogue can be very very mobile.

[Millennium]

+1 That. You are speaking out of my soul/heart/whatever.
It feels more and more like 'make believe'.

Which is, in the end, what RPGs are. What's the matter with that?

People earlier said that they seen more role play at the table, but do you really need a new system for that that basically enforces these elements in the rule system? Even in the CORE rule system?

Some 40 years of roleplaying history would seem to indicate that yes, you do. Especially in core.

I really don't want Wizards to tell me how my character should behave or what my backstory consists of. I have enough creativity left to come up with that myself, thank you.

How lucky for you, then, that Wizards isn't doing any of that.

I also don't want to read through all that (well intended) cr*p when trying to fill out my character sheet. Shouldn't core be core information?

Core should be core information, yes. This is core information. You are playing a character, not a sack of ammunition, and this implies more than numbers.

[MrBright01]

The one thing I did not care for in the free PDF version I investigated was the feeling of... generic. A Fighter is a Fighter is a Fighter. This is great for introducing people to the idea of role-playing, but around the 3rd fighter, I would probably grow bored. PF/3.5 had their flaws, but they let you customize as hard and you chose to do so.

Now mind, the free PDF I found did not include feats, or even explain how you got them, but if what I have read elsewhere holds true, the genuine, non-zany choices will be comparatively rare.

Would not mind playing for a bit, but I'll always be a Pathfinder :).

EDIT: Millennium, if I was not a dude, I would ask you to have my babies. Or at least have my babies in a RPG. That's what I've missed in roleplaying for nearly 10 years. Heck, if 5th brings this sort of thinking back, I'll accept it with open, if generic, arms.

[Renen]

Suddenly, I dont feel like trying to play Next...

[Psyren]

300 level 1 fighters could kill a level 20 fighter in 3.P due to critical hits and how much the level 20 fighter sucks.

I doubt it - the 3.P fighter can have more than three magic items

And you know what, I like immersion in my game. Having an army go up against one hero/villian and have them kill him isn't a bad thing for a game.

And what if I want to build that legendary warrior? The one that can rip through an entire army and come out alive?

If I optimize even moderately in 3.5 or PF I can do that. Hell, in 4e I could do that. In 5e... well, maybe power creep will solve that problem eventually, but right now it's not there.

It actually let's the game world make sense or else high level threats would eventually take over the world because the low level people could never deal with a threat with numbers and the hero's are to busy dealing with other high level threats.

Or are there a high level of high level hereos that will deal with these threats?

If numbers don't matter you will never have society advance because what would be the point? No safety in numbers means that all you would probably get is a bunch of small villages and you would never see a castle or anything like that... I mean hell unless by chance a hero shows up (and isn't to busy to care) a dragon or X threat will just destroy your castle and take your stuff.

Safety in numbers.

I look at this the opposite way - the fact that numbers don't work as well is why we need heroes. If Metropolis or Gotham could band together and solve all their problems, you wouldn't need Superman or Batman. When Samson wrecked 1000 Philistines using a very improvised weapon, that was cool, and it's something you can replicate in 3.P. Not being able to do so just plain limits the stories you can tell.

[Renen]

And thats what I like in 3.5.
If you want, you can be godlike by 20. Reading descriptions of Next I feel like its all 6e, where the strongest arent actually all the strong...

[Larkas]

The strange thing about 5E is that it makes me feel like I'm playing my old First Quest set again. That's not a terrible thing, mind you, but it feels so... Basic. Maybe that's intended, WotC did come out and say that the free PDF IS the new Basic D&D, but what I saw in the playtest, and I was a playtester from the very beginning, is that this will be true of the "full" system as well.

Again, I don't think this is terrible by any stretch of the word. The system, as far as I'm aware, will be pretty good. As was said above, if nothing, it will be pretty neat for introducing new players to the game (just like First Quest was!). It just might not be the right system for me.

But to add to the discussion, if I had to criticize the system for anything, these would be my points so far:

(1) high level battles (apparently) will last quite a long time, what with HP scaling when everything else does not. They could've bit the bullet and gone with something more akin to AD&D here.

(2) they could've taken a more modular (GURPSish, if you will) approach to their rules. So you don't want to use skills? Fine, your game will not be impacted negatively by it! But in case you change your mind, have this skill subsystem anyways.

PS: Come to think of it, it seems like 5E will be a pretty good system for gritty fantasy. And that's fine! That was the original intent of D&D, and something 3.X never really delivered (save for E6). Myself, I like heroic fantasy better, which is something 3.X does deliver, and maybe that's why I'm feeling like, even though 5E might be a good system, it just might not be the system for me.

[Zanos]

PS: Come to think of it, it seems like 5E will be a pretty good system for gritty fantasy. And that's fine! That was the original intent of D&D, and something 3.X never really delivered (save for E6). Myself, I like heroic fantasy better, which is something 3.X does deliver, and maybe that's why I'm feeling like, even though 5E might be a good system, it just might not the system for me.

Pretty much my feelings exactly. I'm not trying to tell anyone 5E is bad either, but it's not the D&D I would like to play.

[Dimcair]

+1 That. You are speaking out of my soul/heart/whatever.
It feels more and more like 'make believe'.

Which is, in the end, what RPGs are. What's the matter with that?

Make believe is not limited by any sort of frame as in rules. You make everything up on the go, the world only comes to life in the persons mind that makes up the rules, for others it might feel alien.

People earlier said that they seen more role play at the table, but do you really need a new system for that that basically enforces these elements in the rule system? Even in the CORE rule system?

Some 40 years of roleplaying history would seem to indicate that yes, you do. Especially in core.

Any ... support for that other than your word? 40 Years of roleplaying history should have logically taught us something. That argument is a bit weird.

I really don't want Wizards to tell me how my character should behave or what my backstory consists of. I have enough creativity left to come up with that myself, thank you.

How lucky for you, then, that Wizards isn't doing any of that.

They are. Did you read a different PDF? Filling a book with fluff instead of content and then calling it 'focusing on role play' seems to go down this road. Furthermore, there is no role play chapter or something, every class has its own ~page long entry about how stereotypical members of it act. You are even encouraged to roll for a certain goal.

I also don't want to read through all that (well intended) cr*p when trying to fill out my character sheet. Shouldn't core be core information?

Core should be core information, yes. This is core information. You are playing a character, not a sack of ammunition, and this implies more than numbers.

So one the one hand you say Wizards doesn't tell me how my character should behave, on the other hand you are telling me that how my character should behave is Core information? So did Wizards do a good or a bad job? Which is it?



Honestly, I do respect your opinion, but not with this attitude. And if you do not see the difference between a consistent system based around a frame of rules and 'make believe', then I think you do not want to and your intent is just to be rude.
No need for that.
I rarely see this kind of rudeness on this forum, I'd like it to stay this way.

Thank you.

[Dalebert]

As apposed to playing almost any PF class that doesn't allow you to keep up with the game unless you have a system mastery to optimize the crap out of your class.

Really there are a ton of classes that just gain numbers in 3.P and don't really gain substance.

And I never play them. Problem solved from my POV. I've been pressured into playing them before and I'm always bored. Meanwhile, there always seem to be people around who don't want the complexities of playing a tier 1 char so they save me the trouble. I say fix those classes and other problems with the game rather than making a completely different game. And you said yourself that casters are still broken in 5e. It sounds like they just dumbed everyone down, casters included, but didn't dumb them down enough that they would stop dominating.

I do think the 5E books are nice for people who are new to roleplaying and don't have somebody already familiar with RPGs to explain it to them; starting characters with motivations, flaws, and connections is a good move for that. I don't remember any earlier edition of D&D doing that.

This...

Again, I don't think this is terrible by any stretch of the word. The system, as far as I'm aware, will be pretty good. As was said above, if nothing, it will be pretty neat for introducing new players to the game (just like First Quest was!). It just might not be the right system for me.

...and this. That's why I said let these newcomers, these non-geeks have their little league version of gaming. I just wish someone out there would just fix 3.x and stop trying to replace it with a completely different dumbed-down game. Makes me wonder if the true geeks are a dying breed and just not a big enough market to support something like that. I guess it's also just easier on their side than making a bunch of elaborate new content--classes with elaborate level feature charts, revisions of monsters with stats and powers, etc.

Maybe I'm just old and nostalgic.

[squiggit]

It's never worth it to say no to a system you've never tried. And, as mentioned, the price point is free if you can make it to a gaming store that will be running D&D Encounters come August.

I'll probably give it a try. It's just gone from something I was very interested in looking at into something I'm deeply skeptical of.

Oh random note, the edition waring hasn't been a problem this time

This forum in particular seems to be pretty placid. Some of the 4e forums I go to utterly despise the game and consider it a huge step backwards in terms of design and essentially taking the worst of 2e, 3.5 and 4e and slapping them together haphazardly in a desperate attempt to make some money off of nostalgia.

(2) they could've taken a more modular

Did they abandon modularity? I remember earlier this year seeing a lot of stuff trying to sell 5e as a game that that had lots of independent modules you could mix and match to make the game feel more like various versions of D&D ( i.e. a gritty fantasy module that strips out a lot of the more high end stuff and a lot of the rules to play like OD&D, another that would make it more like an AD&D dungeon crawler, a tactical combat module that made it play more like 4e, etc.).

[Zanos]

This forum in particular seems to be pretty placid. Some of the 4e forums I go to utterly despise the game and consider it a huge step backwards in terms of design and essentially taking the worst of 2e, 3.5 and 4e and slapping them together haphazardly in a desperate attempt to make some money off of nostalgia, taking 2e, 3.5 and some 4e, stripping out everything likable from each and mixing together whatever is left over.

That's probably because 3.5 people didn't really expect 5e to be close to 3.5. Our edition of choice had been replaced by Wizards when 4e came out, so it's not like we're losing publication support all over again with the release of a new edition.

[Larkas]

Did they abandon modularity? I remember earlier this year seeing a lot of stuff trying to sell 5e as a game that that had lots of independent modules you could mix and match to make the game feel more like various versions of D&D ( i.e. a gritty fantasy module that strips out a lot of the more high end stuff and a lot of the rules to play like OD&D, another that would make it more like an AD&D dungeon crawler, a tactical combat module that made it play more like 4e, etc.).

That's the thing. I read that too, but as far as I saw in the playtest (though I must confess I stopped following what they were doing in Decrmber or so), that wasn't being tested. I really hope they follow through with those plans.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

And I never play them. Problem solved from my POV. I've been pressured into playing them before and I'm always bored. Meanwhile, there always seem to be people around who don't want the complexities of playing a tier 1 char so they save me the trouble. I say fix those classes and other problems with the game rather than making a completely different game. And you said yourself that casters are still broken in 5e. It sounds like they just dumbed everyone down, casters included, but didn't dumb them down enough that they would stop dominating.

That is the big misconception that even WotC has.

Useful and able to keep up with the game or high powered Versitile doesn't have to mean complex.

Way to many people think to have non-casters be anything other than "I move and attack" you have to make it complicated.

And what is crazy about all this, a great system has been part of D&D and Pathfinder for years, hell 4e had the backwards version of it.

Attack roll => effect => save for reduce effect?

Fighter makes an attack roll which has an effect. Either it does the effect or the target gains a saving throw.

Like throwing a creature...

Make an unarmed attack roll, on a hit you deal no damage but may throw the creature a number of feet equal to your strength or dexterity score. The target gains a dexterity saving throw (reflex) versus DC = 8 + 2 * prof bonus [or 10 + BAB]. On a failed save they fall prone where they land.

Not complex at all. Attack roll, strength score, DC for saving throw. As you level up you can increase the distance and add rider effects. In 5e you could technically (as a monk) use this to throw your enemy, run up along side of them, use your Bonus Action to TWF and punch/kick/hump the creature for damage.

So you have this simple ability that IF someone wanted it can become more complex but it doesn't have to be.

Level 20 Fighter uses multiple attacks a round to use this throw... Hot damn that sounds fun (5e has built in spring attack btw).

If you throw the same creature multiple times (and move around with him) you could easily fluff it as you throw and then kick the creature around for the rest of the throws.

[Dimcair]

T
(1) high level battles (apparently) will last quite a long time, what with HP scaling when everything else does not. They could've bit the bullet and gone with something more akin to AD&D here.

(2) they could've taken a more modular (GURPSish, if you will) approach to their rules. So you don't want to use skills? Fine, your game will not be impacted negatively by it! But in case you change your mind, have this skill subsystem anyways.[/INDENT]

PS: Come to think of it, it seems like 5E will be a pretty good system for gritty fantasy. And that's fine! That was the original intent of D&D, and something 3.X never really delivered (save for E6). Myself, I like heroic fantasy better, which is something 3.X does deliver, and maybe that's why I'm feeling like, even though 5E might be a good system, it just might not be the system for me.

Thank you for the very constructive criticism!
I do agree to the Post Scriptum, it feels a bit like Warhammer 2nd. Gritty and with mundane people being a threat to heroes at all levels.

[Seppo87]

Maybe they're deliberately only making a few good feats, so you don't feel like your small number of feats is making you choose between too many good options!

I second this minus sarcasm

[Kurald Galain]

As far as we've seen so far, they've abandoned the idea of modularity, yes. Except in the sense that the free/basic PDF is a subset of the PHB1, and the starter kit is a subset of the free/basic PDF.

Regarding feats, the baseline for 5E feats is slightly stronger than Weapon Focus. WOTC claims that Weapon Focus is a big deal, but as most 3E/PF players will attest it is really not all that powerful.

[georgie_leech]

As far as we've seen so far, they've abandoned the idea of modularity, yes. Except in the sense that the free/basic PDF is a subset of the PHB1, and the starter kit is a subset of the free/basic PDF.

Regarding feats, the baseline for 5E feats is slightly stronger than Weapon Focus. WOTC claims that Weapon Focus is a big deal, but as most 3E/PF players will attest it is really not all that powerful.

In 3E/PF; could they have been referring to 4e when commenting on Weapon Focus, where attack bonuses were king?

[Zanos]

As far as we've seen so far, they've abandoned the idea of modularity, yes. Except in the sense that the free/basic PDF is a subset of the PHB1, and the starter kit is a subset of the free/basic PDF.

Regarding feats, the baseline for 5E feats is slightly stronger than Weapon Focus. WOTC claims that Weapon Focus is a big deal, but as most 3E/PF players will attest it is really not all that powerful.

Weapon Focus actually seems pretty solid if other modifiers are significantly harder to come by in 5e.

[Craft (Cheese)]

As far as we've seen so far, they've abandoned the idea of modularity, yes. Except in the sense that the free/basic PDF is a subset of the PHB1, and the starter kit is a subset of the free/basic PDF.

Regarding feats, the baseline for 5E feats is slightly stronger than Weapon Focus. WOTC claims that Weapon Focus is a big deal, but as most 3E/PF players will attest it is really not all that powerful.

Silly Kurald! The modules that will fix all the problems everyone has with the game and make it perfect for everyone forever will be printed in a later supplement that I'm sure will be announced any day now. You just gotta BELIEVE!

[huttj509]

Silly Kurald! The modules that will fix all the problems everyone has with the game and make it perfect for everyone forever will be printed in a later supplement that I'm sure will be announced any day now. You just gotta BELIEVE!

...um, you realize the PHB/MM/DMG aren't even out yet, right? I mean, I think there's a leaked alpha phb floating round the intertubes, but the Basic PDF is, well, exactly what it says on the tin. Basic. The playtests were focused on specific things/feel questions (which was very poorly communicated), and most of the modular campaign option sort of things would properly be in the DMG, which isn't gonna be out for months.

This isn't 3.5's "I can has ToB errata?" This is a basic document, that they've stated will be changing and having things added to it as more options are released. I mean, people can absolutely get impressions from the basic pdf and starter set, but blanket statements about "this is all 5e is" are kinda premature, for the next 2 weeks. It's not like I can offer any real rebuttal, because I don't have a PHB to look through and reference.

[Secret Wizard]

I just wanted to say that D&D Next feats are about 4 PF feats rolled together and the Martial-Caster balance in 5E is driving me away from PF for good, sadly.

[ArqArturo]

5e has me torn.

I love PF, and I'm kind of waiting for PF Unleashed, but...

The little I've played of Next has me intrigued. That being said, my world setting is built on PF and that ain't changing. Ever.

But I will still try 5th.

That being said, 5e feels like dark, fantasy to me. If I want to make a game setting that feels more on par with something of Norse/Slavic elements, or maybe something similar to Diablo, Next seems great for that.

PF/3.X is more built towards power. It is where the legendary hero mows through waves of enemies, and it feels more, well, heroic. Not to say you're not a hero in 5e, but... 5th is Berserker, and 3.P is Record of Lodoss War, to make an example.

Hell, you could run a pretty nice Conan game in 5e.

Another thing is, that 5th could've been worse... They could have adopted a system similar to RIFTS.