Pathfinder vs. Next/5th

[Dimcair]

So my group decides to switch the system the third time in ~16 months. :smallfrown:

Started with 3.5, moved to pathfinder, then switched to warhammer (2nd edition i believe) and now it is supposed to be 5th edition.
We were supposed to switch back to pathfinder after the warhammer disaster (no one liked it but the DM who introduced it, sb else is DMing now).
I did like pathfinder the best and I never wanted to switch to warhammer in the first place.

They played it in one session (with half the group present) and found it to be much easier and faster to play as well as that there was more role playing at the table.
Now according to my group I am not allowed to complain or argue about the new version before I have played it, regardless of that I am being linked to this article
http://killscreendaily.com/articles/why-new-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-matters/
praising the DnD 5 experience. So positive opinions about the version are welcome apparently.

I don't necessarily find this article convincing, but since the positive opinion of other people than me matters, maybe a more critical opinion of other people than me will matter as well.

Please discuss, link to threads/articles, or give points in favor or against the 5th edition.

Note: The plan is to buy "one" PHB when it comes out in mid-august for a group of 7 people total. To me that doesn't sound like it will speed up any game.

What I have come up with:

1. Wizards toned the game down, but I don't think it is purely out of the want to do so but the need, as their development resources are limited.
2. The focus on role-playing does not come from the absence of rules but from the incentive Wizards gives you at character creation.
However, this is applicable to all other systems and having the need for such tools is rather a sign that one lacks fantasy/creativity or doesn't want to role play.
3. While the game is the tool to create your own game, I feel like I lost my toolbox (pathfinder) and have to make due with the simple hammer and nail (5th). Loads of concepts are tossed/not realizable. (RIP Heavy-Metal Bard).
4. The support: Pathfinder is arguably the most popular tabletop with multiple core books in the 5th,6th printing, errata/corrections and a huge community all over the world. DnD 5th is a game that is advertised as easier to play but not even out yet.
5. Character creation: For me it feels like character creation in 5th takes me longer than it took me in pathfinder. meh


Can you make me love dnd next...

[Firechanter]

We have an separate board here for 5E, you might want to snoop around there a bit.

The long and short of it is that 5E has - for all we know currently - a vastly reduced power curve compared to 3.X. The biggest difference is that the numbers don't get significantly bigger.
In Pathfinder, you start with something like +5 To Hit and ~17AC (without Shield). By level 20, your character will have easily +35 To Hit and >40AC.
In 5E, you start out with something like +5 To Hit and 16AC. By level 20, you may have climbed to something like +16 To Hit (with maxed-out items) and ~24AC.

Hitpoints scale in the same fashion as in 3.X. So for the most part, a new level means more HP, and some other boon that makes you better at what you did before.

Feats are optional, and scarce. You can only get a feat if you forsake an Ability Increase, which classes get at difference paces, usually every 4 levels or so. However, they are also more powerful than what you are used to; 1 5E feat being worth a full 3-4 feat chain in PF.

Spellcasters now have severely limited spell slots. Where a highlevel 3.5 Wizard may have something like 50 spells per day and 6 level 9 slots, her 5E counterpart will have more like 20 slots and only 1 each of the higher-level ones. While the spells as such are similarly powerful as before, many spells have a clause that while they are active, you cannot maintain other spells. Also, the spell preparation method is more liberal (and more akin to the Spirit Shaman method in 3.5).

However, Saving Throws: you now have one Save per Attribute, and each class gets only 2 scaling ("strong") saves (tied to your primary abilities). For example, a Fighter gets good Str and Con saves. His Wis save will remain around 0 from level 1 through 20. Whereas the Save DCs imposed by spellcasters _do_ scale.

There is no more WBL. You are never expected to have this and that gear at a certain level (at least they claim so). This also implies that monsters can't have special immunities that can only be bypassed by certain gear. Theoretically the game is supposed to be playable without magic items.

The main difference is that in 3.5 and PF, you become largely immune to lowlevel mobs before long. They can only hit you on a natural 20 and have practically no chance to confirm a crit. In 5E, even at level 20 any common Orc can have a 10-15% hit chance, and Crits do not need confirming.

This has two implications:
* any slightly-larger force of lowlevel NPCs is and always remains a considerable threat to even the highest level PCs. Wading through an army of Hobgoblins? Forget it.
* The same applies also against high-level monsters, at least going by the last Playtest Bestiary. Any company of Archers can scatter out and kill a Dragon within a couple of rounds, even if 2/3 of them run away scared.

So, I can't tell you whether you're supposed to like that or not. It might actually be fun. But personally, I'm pretty sure it won't displace 3.5 as my favourite system.

[Dimcair]

I am already snooping through the 5ed forum, I also thought about posting the thread there, but since I am interested in comparisons and this forum has more traffic I posted it here. I will post a link to this thread in the 5ed Forum.

Thank you for summing up some of the issues/benefits of the system. I knew of most of these already (without playing the game^^lol). The most alien to me is the saving throw concept. A 20th level character will have some VERY low saving throws.

[Segev]

Going strictly by what I have read in this thread (as the article linked provided no useful information to me), it sounds like Next is designed to have less disparity at the highest levels by simply not having much disparity between low and high levels.

I am concerned hearing about the concept that only two saves scale; 4 saves at +0 at level 20 sounds like "casters win," again, with a horrific game of rocket tag.

Some of the 3e problems from casters winning can be resolved if the spells that keep you from having others active include all of those which let you fire-and-forget a major ally or few. But I do worry that it will just shift it from conjurors to enchanters or necromancers as the "winners" of D&D, as all it takes is save-or-suck against a bad save to drop somebody. Maybe they're getting rid of save-or-suck spells, but I'll only believe that when I see it AND they don't introduce it within the first 2 years' splatbooks.

In all, this is a sparse review, obviously; I am willing to give Next a try, as it sounds like it has a different enough design structure while attempting to go back to the core elements that gives D&D its "feel." I will need to see how classes are structured, and whether this has room for subsystems the way 2e and 3e did, before making a real judgment. To me, 4e's biggest failing was replacing all subsystems for all classes with a modified Martial Adept paradigm. Losing all the other styles made it not feel like D&D anymore, to me.

[jjcrpntr]

I wouldn't mind trying out 5E again but my group really hated it when we did the playtest. Thought about picking it up but the pdf rules they put out were exactly what we had tested so none of them were interested. I like some of the stuff, advantage/disadvantage the saving throws, how a clerics deity effects the character, backgrounds and such. I like that there seems to be more emphasis on roleplay. That said mechanically there's some stuff we didn't care for.

Now it may have been that my party was primarily filled with people who were coming from rifts to 3.5 then trying 5e and it was my first experience as a DM so everyone was learning something new. My players really, really hated that they couldn't increase stats beyond 20 w/o a magic item (which by the pdf and such are supposed to be few and far between).

It's not a bad looking system. There were some things we liked, some things we didn't. Not enough there for us/me to say we needed to switch.

One of the biggest problems people seem to have with pathfinder/3.5 is that the combat seems to take a long time. I haven't noticed that problem with my group.

[Psyren]

5e looks okay so far. My group might try it but I don't see us ditching 3.P for it.

There's a lot of the system that's simply left up to the DM to resolve, like skill checks. I'd rather have an objective DC with subjective (circumstance) modifiers than a totally subjective DC.

Also, part of me likes the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but the other part of me thinks it's a bit too simple. Making an impossible shot with a lot of penalties (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0059.html) is just inherently more memorable.

The feats so far are not impressing me at all. I've seen one good one and a whole lot of dreck in what they've previewed so far. And given how few of them you get now, this is worrying.

[Segev]

5e looks okay so far. My group might try it but I don't see us ditching 3.P for it.To be fair, this is a natural reaction for anybody who's immersed in an older edition. 2e players said it about 3e, and later became 3e fans. The reason why 4e broke this trend has more to do with how little it actually felt like D&D, and how much it felt like a new, possibly-well-balanced fantasy game that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.


There's a lot of the system that's simply left up to the DM to resolve, like skill checks. I'd rather have an objective DC with subjective (circumstance) modifiers than a totally subjective DC.That is worrisome; if they wanted to increase focus on non-combat objectives, expanding and deepening the skill system should have been their goal.

"The DM decides" is a huge cop-out if used on an entire sub-system. Having myriad tools for the DM to decide upon is fine; having an empty toolbox and saying "you make it up" seems...lazy.

I'll reserve judgment 'til I see it, but that's a concerning thing to hear if I'm understanding what's being said correctly.


Also, part of me likes the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but the other part of me thinks it's a bit too simple. Making an impossible shot with a lot of penalties (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0059.html) is just inherently more memorable.Gotta be careful with this one. "Making an impossible shot with a lot of penalties" has the downside of happening statistically very rarely. Yes, that makes it more memorable, but too often I see people set these situations up with the unspoken and unacknowledged expectation that the heroes will succeed anyway. That they WILL roll that nat 20 that they need.

If the advantages system allows the players to decide that "now is the time for that 1-in-a-million shot to actually mean I definitely succeed," it enables the dramatic expectation we all have in fiction to be achieved in the game: 1-in-a-million chances succeed 98% of the time in fiction. It's one reason why more cynical viewers don't experience any of the artificial drama engendered by the informed odds. We know the heroes will pull it out...or that the villains will manage to get their macguffin to work so that the heroes have to fight the giant monster we've been hinted at for most of the show. Only in "nothing would be scarier" horror, where they actually don't show us the horror, are we going to see the villains fail their long-shot chance of bringing out their big gun. Otherwise, if you see the monster, it's a Chekov's Gun. No matter how slim the odds are said to be, you know it'll get out so the heroes can fight it. Conversely, no matter how slim the heroes' odds of victory are, you know they'll pull it out.


The feats so far are not impressing me at all. I've seen one good one and a whole lot of dreck in what they've previewed so far. And given how few of them you get now, this is worrying.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!

[Psyren]

To be fair, this is a natural reaction for anybody who's immersed in an older edition. 2e players said it about 3e, and later became 3e fans. The reason why 4e broke this trend has more to do with how little it actually felt like D&D, and how much it felt like a new, possibly-well-balanced fantasy game that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.

That is worrisome; if they wanted to increase focus on non-combat objectives, expanding and deepening the skill system should have been their goal.

"The DM decides" is a huge cop-out if used on an entire sub-system. Having myriad tools for the DM to decide upon is fine; having an empty toolbox and saying "you make it up" seems...lazy.

It's not completely "you make it up" - they do give you a table that says "Very Easy = 5, Easy = 10.... Hard = 20, Very Hard = 25", up to "nearly impossible" at 30.

But for starters I see it causing arguments - no guidance is given on, say, what should count as"hard" vs. "very hard", and if you fail your roll by 3 you're going to feel cheated. And the way the system works, DC 30 is going to be tricky even for a max level character (the max ability score you can have at 20th level is 20 [+5 modifier], and the max proficiency bonus for a 20th-level character is +6, for a total of +11 to something you're proficient in) especially with how little items will reportedly play a role.



Gotta be careful with this one. "Making an impossible shot with a lot of penalties" has the downside of happening statistically very rarely. Yes, that makes it more memorable, but too often I see people set these situations up with the unspoken and unacknowledged expectation that the heroes will succeed anyway. That they WILL roll that nat 20 that they need.

Actually, what I would say is that this is where magic comes in. You take the realistic scenario (I need to shoot at that guy who is fleeing rapidly through the air from behind a wall with a whole bunch of monsters in the way) and add the fantastic (I have a magic bow, elite training represented by my archery feates, a natural propensity towards archery from my race and ability scores, and various buffs.) And where the real meets the fantastic is where legends are born.

More to the point, 5e goes too far in the other direction. All the modifiers Haley griped about would translate in 5e to "disadvantage," meaning she would just roll twice against Nale's AC and take the lower result, and if she had advantage for any reason it would cancel all of that out. If she could, say, hit on a 8 normally she might not even notice all the penalties. The DM has the discretion to say "you can't even try that" but no guidelines are given here either.



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!

Ha :smalltongue:

Well the other problem is that you have to choose between feats or ability score incresses now - you don't get both. Considering that monsters can go up to 10 points higher than you (30 max vs. your 20) and magic items are much more limited, you're going to need all the help you can get when high levels roll around.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In 5e, so far mind you, there is less of a need for high ability scores like in other editions.

Sure it is nice and very helpful, but taking a feat instead of getting that ability score increase just doesn't hurt as much as it would in 3.P/4e.

One thing 5e has over other editions is that a fighter who switches fighting styles (say from TWF to polearm, strength based) isn't horribly punished or their build isn't useless.

Basically you are good at all fighting styles and you specialize to be exceptional.

So you are going through a dungeon and you get random loot of a +1 kopesh when you normally use a longsword... You won't have to sell it to get a +1 longsword (or else fight with a weapon you sont have feats for and suxh) and your DM doesn't have to keep putting your specific weapon on treasure chests that conveniently show up every time. The DM gets to actually make a random treasure table and not screw over mundanes.

Edit

Some feats will give a +1 ability score + stuff... This is from the 5e thread.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10568833_10152560510591071_3800565637939521807_n.j pg


Edit:

So far the art in 5e is so much better than what I've seen of pathfinder. I haven't seen a ton of the Pathfinder art but from what I have... 5e blows it out of the water.

[Dalebert]

I'm leery of these attempts to simplify the game. I feel like you sacrifice... I don't want to say "realism" because that would be misleading. I don't want it to be particularly realistic. Otherwise, why play a fantasy game? Rather, I think you sacrifice a sense of immersion into what is happening. Yes, we're sort of telling a story together and I get that low-rules games are more about that, but less rules and guidelines for your abilities and your enemy's makes everything feel more ambiguous. It makes it harder for me to push my "I believe" button--that I am, for a moment, this character in this particular situation and there's a challenge before me that I must resolve. I could die or I could be rewarded for success. The more mushy the rules, the more it feels kind of pointless. I'm not clear on what my capabilities are. I'm not clear on the threat of what I'm facing. I've always enjoyed role-playing but that's far from all of the game for me. I enjoy the strategies and planning for ways to be more effective and all of that deteriorates in a rules-light system.

I'm a geek. From the moment I discovered D&D, I immersed myself in the books. People made fun of me for having entire books memorized. I'm not as obsessive anymore. There are plenty here that put me to shame, but I LIKE you people for that. You're so frakking geeky! The point is, I never got to PLAY as much as I wanted to but when I wasn't playing, I was enjoying learning all the rules, classes, spells, magic items. All that material was a banquet for me. I could never get enough. New Dragon magazine articles with suggestions for how to make the rules even more complicated were table-talks for us. We could spend hours at Denny's late at night after a game talking about them and we loved it. We were enthralled.

Maybe RPGs are so mainstream now that they're trying to appeal to the less-geeky. People want it to be easier, I guess. For me, this is my obsession the same way sports is for someone else. Now I feel like lots of people want to play the game but they kind of suck compared to us and they want us to dumb it down for them. I say let them have their league and let's keep our own league for a different level of interest.

[Psyren]

The word you're probably looking for Dalebert is "verisimilitude." 4e and to a lesser extent 5e tend to put that aside for ease of play, but for me, the complexities of monster design and tracking various modifiers adds to my immersion.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm leery of these attempts to simplify the game. I feel like you sacrifice... I don't want to say "realism" because that would be misleading. I don't want it to be particularly realistic. Otherwise, why play a fantasy game? Rather, I think you sacrifice a sense of immersion into what is happening. Yes, we're sort of telling a story together and I get that low-rules games are more about that, but less rules and guidelines for your abilities and your enemy's makes everything feel more ambiguous. It makes it harder for me to push my "I believe" button--that I am, for a moment, this character in this particular situation and there's a challenge before me that I must resolve. I could die or I could be rewarded for success. The more mushy the rules, the more it feels kind of pointless. I'm not clear on what my capabilities are. I'm not clear on the threat of what I'm facing. I've always enjoyed role-playing but that's far from all of the game for me. I enjoy the strategies and planning for ways to be more effective and all of that deteriorates in a rules-light system.

Pathfinder: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 7

5e: 1 x 7 = 7

Multiplication is simpler to write down and is just as real as adding up 7 things in this instance.

Actually 3.P is more like... X^2 + 1 = 7 and if you are at negative HP and you start drowning you heal HP, solve for X.

[Psyren]

So far the art in 5e is so much better than what I've seen of pathfinder. I haven't seen a ton of the Pathfinder art but from what I have... 5e blows it out of the water.

To each his own - I like some 5e pieces a lot (like their bard) but Pathfinder still has the edge in my book. The picture you posted above with the feats excerpt for instance I find to be very bland. And 5e is being very stingy with the art so far e.g. if you compare the PF Beginner Box to the 5e Starter Set, they don't even have illustrations for all the monsters.

[Kurald Galain]

The main difference is that in PF, your character improves a lot as he levels up, whereas in 5E he won't. Sure, you gain hit points at more-or-less the same rate, but your attacks/skills/saves don't go up by much (two or three points over ten levels, and your weak saves don't go up at all), you don't learn new skills ever, you gain substantially less feats (and no, feats are not particularly stronger than PF feats so far), and most class features are simple numerical bonuses instead of additional options. On the one hand, this makes the game easier; on the other hand, there's less character diversity and everything stays at a rather low power level (except spellcasters, of course).

[Tvtyrant]

I think 5E is the perfect place to port in time of battle for that reason. Better and more varied options as you level instead of an increasing to-hit.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think 5E is the perfect place to port in time of battle for that reason. Better and more varied options as you level instead of an increasing to-hit.

Setting Sun (link in my signature) worked well when I play tested it. I need to work on the damage it deals but it was a lot of fun to throw my enemies around.

Also my phone turns Tome into Time. :smallannoyed:

[squiggit]

Not to go entirely offtopic but I was kind of excited to try 5e but the more I read the thread the more it sounds like a terrible use of my money.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Not to go entirely offtopic but I was kind of excited to try 5e but the more I read the thread the more it sounds like a terrible use of my money.

Free PDF costs nothing.

[Chaosvii7]

Not to go entirely offtopic but I was kind of excited to try 5e but the more I read the thread the more it sounds like a terrible use of my money.

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.

[Dalebert]

It's never worth it to say no to a system you've never tried.

My time is valuable to me. Trying a system represents an opportunity cost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRb0GSP-6NM).

[Zanos]

My time is valuable to me. Trying a system represents an opportunity cost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRb0GSP-6NM).
Economics 101 should really be in primary education. It applies to a lot more than you would think.

And I'll be sticking with 3.5 myself. I like that a level 20 character can steamroll level 1's all day. WotC didn't, I guess. You're likely to get a pretty biased view from the 3.5 board, however.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Economics 101 should really be in primary education. It applies to a lot more than you would think.

And I'll be sticking with 3.5 myself. I like that a level 20 character can steamroll level 1's all day. WotC didn't, I guess. You're likely to get a pretty biased view from the 3.5 board, however.

A level 1 fighter has no chance against a level 18 champion fighter... The level 1 could hit the level 18 but it will mostly be ignored.

Also here is a review that recently came through.

http://dreadgazebo.net/review-dnd-5e-starter-set/

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

[Zanos]

A level 1 fighter has no chance against a level 18 champion fighter... The level 1 could hit the level 18 but it will mostly be ignored.

Also here is a review that recently came through.

http://dreadgazebo.net/review-dnd-5e-starter-set/

Oh random note, the edition waring hasn't been a problem this time :smallsmile:
No, but 300 level 1 fighters do. That's my point.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No, but 300 level 1 fighters do. That's my point.

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.

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.

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.

[Dimcair]

I'm leery of these attempts to simplify the game. I feel like you sacrifice... I don't want to say "realism" because that would be misleading. I don't want it to be particularly realistic. Otherwise, why play a fantasy game? Rather, I think you sacrifice a sense of immersion into what is happening. Yes, we're sort of telling a story together and I get that low-rules games are more about that, but less rules and guidelines for your abilities and your enemy's makes everything feel more ambiguous. It makes it harder for me to push my "I believe" button--that I am, for a moment, this character in this particular situation and there's a challenge before me that I must resolve. I could die or I could be rewarded for success. The more mushy the rules, the more it feels kind of pointless. I'm not clear on what my capabilities are. I'm not clear on the threat of what I'm facing. I've always enjoyed role-playing but that's far from all of the game for me. I enjoy the strategies and planning for ways to be more effective and all of that deteriorates in a rules-light system.



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

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? 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. 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?
I think my point is that stripping away content does not = focusing on role play.
And if you want your players to role play more you can also request flaws/bonds/backstories/etc from them. There is also helpful advice on how to encourage role play at your table, I don't need a extra book for that.

[Zanos]

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.
Except a level 20 fighter also has miss chance, DR, self healing, might be immune to non-magical weapons, etc. If your level 20 fighter can't kill 300 level 1 fighters, you have no idea what you're doing. Level 20 fighters obviously aren't good, but that's a failing of the class, and not a failure of overall system design.

Whether or not you think it's immersion breaking that powerful creatures haven't conquered the world depends on your universe. To most high level characters, the prime material plane is an afterthought, and there are other high level folks that would retaliate if someone just tried to conquer everything. MAD is a pretty tried and true means of deterrence.

Whether or not that's how you want the game to work is a matter of opinion. Saying that it's not realistic, or it breaks the game world or whatever isn't relevant, because you can build your game world around that and throw forces behind each school of thought, and come up with a million circumstances where the world can work the way you want it to work.

[Dalebert]

The main difference is that in PF, your character improves a lot as he levels up, whereas in 5E he won't. Sure, you gain hit points at more-or-less the same rate, but your attacks/skills/saves don't go up by much (two or three points over ten levels, and your weak saves don't go up at all), you don't learn new skills ever, you gain substantially less feats (and no, feats are not particularly stronger than PF feats so far), and most class features are simple numerical bonuses instead of additional options. On the one hand, this makes the game easier; on the other hand, there's less character diversity and everything stays at a rather low power level (except spellcasters, of course).

God, that sounds so boring.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

God, that sounds so boring.

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.

[Kurald Galain]

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.

[Zanos]

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.
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.

[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.

:smallsmile:

[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 :smalltongue:


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 :smallsmile:
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.