Pathfinder vs. Next/5th

[Dimcair]

Since in this case the topic is linked:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364681-Pathfinder-vs-Next-5th&p=17864520#post17864520

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Since in this case the topic is linked:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364681-Pathfinder-vs-Next-5th&p=17864520#post17864520

What classes do you prefer to play? If you are a Rogue/Fighter type then 5e is a heck of a lot better (so far from what I've seen) since many of the rules in 5e are houserules I've seen ran in 3.P games (everyone gets spring attack, simplified rules).

Do note that 5e is new and won't have as many options as other systems, people tend to forget about that...

But really even the other classes, wizards and clerics, act like the 3.5 types... Very powerful daily abilities and can win (not auto win) a lot of situations.

Evocation is actually a good option now, so if you are into blowing stuff up with magic there isn't a better time to play an Evoker. (Without cheese, 3.5 had the mailman).

Pathfinder has all the 3.5 dysfunctional rules, 5e seems to have tried to stop that but until the final game is out who knows how messed up the rules are. Maybe 5e will be like 3.P, when I go unconscious I can get someone to drown me so that I get healed. :smalltongue:

My biggest gripe about PF is that they have all the rules basically given to them... And yet they didn't take the time or effort to fix anything. Sure a spell or two got fixed but really nothing else changed, just threw more crap under different names onto the same pile. Though I do like the full round action ranged attacks not provoking AoO though...

Edit...

Casting while within 5 feet of an enemy is simplified way down... Disadvantage on an attack roll (I houserule advantage for saves too) is a quick and good way to work this out. Really speeds up the game. Pathfinder concentration check (caster level check?) Is easily passed by level 8 ish and can be a waste of time. Ranged attacks take disadvantage if you are close to an enemy, sweet and simple this way too.

[Tholomyes]

Honestly, I don't think we've got enough info to make great judgement calls on the system yet. Keep that in mind, as I respond to your issues from the previous post:


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.

1. Can't say for sure, not being on the dev team, but I'd also say it doesn't really matter. The why of it being toned down doesn't really matter when it comes to actually playing the game. It just comes down to whether you think PF is too complex or too bloated with feats and classes and archetypes. If so, 5e might be good for you. If not, you're probably better off sticking with PF.

2. The rules for stuff like Ideals, flaws and bonds aren't very heavily entwined in the rules. If you don't like them, you don't need to use them. Even if you still use the inspiration mechanic, you can find a different way of rewarding it, simply based on good role playing. I wouldn't count it as a negative, with how easy it is to remove.

3. The toolbox is reduced, yes. It's a PHB release. Even if there were huge numbers of supplements waiting around the corner, the toolbox would still be reduced, because it's a PHB release. That being said, it's also got plenty of tools that PF doesn't have. Backgrounds, for example, are a great way of going outside the box with class concepts, which pathfinder doesn't have as easy access to. Also, I fail to see how the Heavy-metal bard concept is tossed. Unless there's a supplement I'm unaware of (which would almost have to be third party, at which point, if you're allowing third party material, porting it over in some capacity shouldn't be a huge issue), that's really just a flavor thing, which is independent of system.

4. Here is where I can see the real issue popping up. Pathfinder is really well supported (even if you toss everything third party, it still has a huge edge on 5e), and Dev statements seem to indicate that supplements which provide new options aren't a priority for 5e, and that their real priority is pregen campaigns and modules. This is honestly the point that I think will break 5e, if they don't cede this mentality. If having that level of support is important to you, you will NOT find it in 5e, so you'll probably be better off sticking with PF.

[Chaosvii7]

(Quoted from your other topic)



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



1. Understandable, and most likely true. Their dev team grew massive by the end of 3.5, and they retained a fair majority after 4e launched, but approaching 2012 the numbers dwindled down, short of the people writing adventures, modules, and such. It was also at that time that they shifted development over to D&D Next primarily, only concerning themselves with a small portion of 4e maintenance. A lot of the buzz around the 5e forums say that they got a bit of a cold shoulder from Hasbro after 4e was under their sales projections(despite still selling well enough to be a commercial success), and thus they went grassroots to both appeal to the market that they lost and stay under a fair budget to the point where they could slowly regrow their population of creators.

Something I really want to point out is that they just released a ruleset for their Organized Play Platform(The D&D Adventurer's League) and there's a section towards the end of the PDF that basically says "WoTC may announce and hold an open casting call for game designers to write adventures for the Adventurer's League professionally." That personally speaks to me that they want to build up not just a large community of designers, but also a new one to be able to get the gears turning again. You have to admit that even Pathfinder still has the wear and tear of what is now almost a two-decade old set of gaming philosophies that we've moved on from since 2010, so this says to me that they're looking towards the horizon for people who could potentially be assets to their design theory and help them make something potentially better than anything they've done before.

2. Totally fair, and absolutely right, but 5e adds in a small mechanical benefit and makes adopting one of these roleplaying incentives easy by way of having a table that you can pick from or roll on to help build a background for your character to help immersion. If you use the backgrounds in 5e, you get both a class feature that is part fluff, part crunch, as well as the ability to earn Inspiration Points through roleplaying true to your character. Of course, I believe the information for backgrounds to be easily morphic if not entirely optional, so if their fairly organized system for establishing a backstory doesn't sound appealing I'd say you should feel free to go with whatever you want for a background, so long as it's justifiable.

3. I don't actually really agree with this concern. I think the rules-light simplistic nature doesn't detract from the experience at all, but it definitely takes a more tactful approach to the idea behind an adventure and what you can and cannot do with that. All in all, I think 5e's few simple tools can take you a lot longer than a whole box of complicated tools. Also, there's a whole bard Archetype dedicated to being a literal warlord. I think they're heavier metal than ever before.

4. We've no way of fairly assessing whether or not 5e will be able to go toe-to-toe with Pathfinder at this time, but in my opinion it already is, and winning. A lot of the archaic rules constructs of the old editions are flat out gone, and many of them have either been brought up to speed or down back into the stratosphere. 5e really feels like the product of all of the old editions, with a lot of the crap cut out of it's fur. I think the modernized mechanical work plus the chance to even further grow with time are both strongly in 5e's favor, but Pathfinder shows no signs of stopping(not that I want it to), and it's definitely got a home in the roleplaying community that probably would leave a large mess should Paizo somehow find itself out of the majority of it's fanbase. At the end of the day, I don't think that's going to happen, though, because a fanbase never truly dies, and Pathfinder is living proof of that.

If you want my opinion; 5e is going to have waves and ripples in Pathfinder because it's a stem of the parent system and really, nothing in this industry stagnates; Every company will take design cues from one another until they create an experience that's right in the skin for them.

[obryn]

As a general comment, I think it's better to experience a lot of RPG systems, rather than cleave to one forever and ever.

Try out 5e. You might find you enjoy it.

[Chaosvii7]

As a general comment, I think it's better to experience a lot of RPG systems, rather than cleave to one forever and ever.

Try out 5e. You might find you enjoy it.

+1 to this. Roleplaying games are all about telling stories as a group, and the system is just a preferred style behind it. You never know what style you may or may not like if you don't put any effort into exploring it.

[Psyren]

Thirding obryn's advice. While I myself am not yet thrilled about 5e, I would never tell someone simply not to try something they might enjoy a lot.

[Sartharina]

Well, I've finally gotten a concepts that are playable in 5e, but not Pathfinder:
1. Savage barbarians that shun armor. (The Unarmored barbarian archetype for Pathfinder was a joke)
2. A canny, street-smart rogue that's skilled and deadly with a dagger (Pathfinder+3.5's sneak attack rules are horrifically restrictive)
3. A fighter that lives up to its name.

[ImperiousLeader]

Agreed. Playing Fate, Fiasco and Pathfinder all helped my 4e gaming. :smallcool:

Anyway, one thing 5th has over Pathfinder is the spell mechanics. 5th edition spells have a number of serious innovations and improvements over 3.5/Pathfinder. First, a cleaner, simpler write-up. Second, ditching Caster Level and instead allowing spells to scale themselves by the slot used to cast them. Third, all spells are self-contained. Seriously, in 3.5 we had spells referencing each other. Greater X is just like Lesser X, except for this and that and this and that :smallfurious:. Look at Greater Invisibility or Greater Restoration in 5th edition. They do not reference Invisibility or Restoration at all. I love it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Third, all spells are self-contained. Seriously, in 3.5 we had spells referencing each other. Greater X is just like Lesser X, except for this and that and this and that :smallfurious:. Look at Greater Invisibility or Greater Restoration in 5th edition. They do not reference Invisibility or Restoration at all. I love it.

Oh hell yes, this.

[Joe the Rat]

I'll take a fifth of obryn's. If you're inclined towards tooling around with rules, a diversity of experiences can feed into your workshop tools. Even if you don't like 5th, you might find things that are easily portable or can be tweaked into PF.


Second, ditching Caster Level and instead allowing spells to scale themselves by the slot used to cast them.

This is an interesting one. There are going to be some of us wrinkly rumsacks that will be upset at changing such an old and fundamental part of magic rules - almost as old as the Six Attributes. As a tradeoff, you have higher base damages, and no arbitrary 10d6 damage cap. Cantrips do scale with level - character level, making cantrip dips useful in the long run.

[Psyren]

Well, I've finally gotten a concepts that are playable in 5e, but not Pathfinder:
1. Savage barbarians that shun armor. (The Unarmored barbarian archetype for Pathfinder was a joke)
2. A canny, street-smart rogue that's skilled and deadly with a dagger (Pathfinder+3.5's sneak attack rules are horrifically restrictive)
3. A fighter that lives up to its name.

Pfft, I can build all of those in 3.5/PF easily.

Best of all, I have clear benchmarks for "skilled" because I'm not relying on the DM to come up with DCs for everything I try to do. I know if I can hide from a red dragon. I know if I can run through a black tentacles field without stopping. I know if I can backflip behind a manticore. And so on.


Agreed. Playing Fate, Fiasco and Pathfinder all helped my 4e gaming. :smallcool:

Anyway, one thing 5th has over Pathfinder is the spell mechanics. 5th edition spells have a number of serious innovations and improvements over 3.5/Pathfinder. First, a cleaner, simpler write-up. Second, ditching Caster Level and instead allowing spells to scale themselves by the slot used to cast them. Third, all spells are self-contained. Seriously, in 3.5 we had spells referencing each other. Greater X is just like Lesser X, except for this and that and this and that :smallfurious:. Look at Greater Invisibility or Greater Restoration in 5th edition. They do not reference Invisibility or Restoration at all. I love it.

See, I actually dislike this. "Like X except Y" calls out the difference between X and Y and makes it obvious. If you're new and you look at Greater Invisibility first, you might not even realize the regular kind normally drops when you attack someone. You know "Greater" implies there is "not greater" somewhere, but not what it does - it could simply work the same but be shorter, or only be usable on the self, etc.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Pfft, I can build all of those in 3.5/PF easily.



Well yes, someone with your system mastery could. However most people will choose trap options and features that will make them ineffective and useless.

D&D shouldn't be just for the hardcore.

[Psyren]

Well yes, someone with your system mastery could. However most people will choose trap options and features that will make them ineffective and useless.

D&D shouldn't be just for the hardcore.

It's not. Handbooks are a thing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's not. Handbooks are a thing.

And what percentage of d&d players frequent the forums?

Or even know to? My current group didn't know D&D forums were a thing and they have been playing since 2e. I blew their minds when I showed them GitP.

As I said though, D&D shouldn't be just for the hardcore. Plus you shouldn't have to have a ton of help to play sich a simple concept.

[Psyren]

And what percentage of d&d players frequent the forums?

Handbooks are independent of forums, especially in Pathfinder where most of them are in Google Docs nowadays.

If I google "pathfinder magus" for instance, the SRD is the first result and the Magus Handbook is the second. You don't need to frequent a forum to do that.



As I said though, D&D shouldn't be just for the hardcore. Plus you shouldn't have to have a ton of help to play sich a simple concept.

You don't need a ton of help to play a simple concept. It's not like, say, taking Toughness or Skill Focus:Spellcraft will wreck your character. It's suboptimal, but people have been playing suboptimal characters for years without failing at everything they try to do.

And honestly, I see handbooks as much a part of gaming as reading a wiki or strategy guide. It's just something you do whenever you're ready to go to the next level.

[hawklost]

.....................
And honestly, I see handbooks as much a part of gaming as reading a wiki or strategy guide. It's just something you do whenever you're ready to go to the next level.

I think you just made the point that you are a hardcore DnD player. Normal none hardcore players do not spend their time doing google searches for best builds, they Don't spend time on the Wikis and the definitely don't send time looking up any strategy guide. These scenarios are done when you start to get somewhat obsessive in about something instead of playing it causally (Yes, us spending large amounts of time looking up things in DnD and commenting about them on the forums pretty much means we are somewhat obsessive)

Anyone who spends enough time on the forums to be asking even simple quick questions fits into the more moderate to hardcore group than a casual player (as they don't always care if the rules say something). Casual players don't always even own a handbook and instead don't really think about the mechanics of the game unless are more hardcore player brings it up (and even then, rarely do they put much thought into it). The Casual player doesn't care about having the optimized DPR or skills, they care more that their concept can be realized (even if the concept is pretty stupid or not).

Many a casual player can come up with some pretty crazy ideas because they never bothered reading the rules and don't have the restrictions in their minds. Sadly, as a person enjoys a game more, they are more likely to spend larger amounts of time looking up things in the game and move from a Casual player to a Moderate to even a Hardcore player, this can sometimes ruin their crazy inventiveness as they understand the rules and restrictions better.

[Psyren]

And there's nothing wrong with that. You can play Pathfinder or 3.5 just fine without ever setting digital foot inside a forum or handbook.

But those people tend not to care about "trap options" since they can generally succeed regardless of build, even if they're not doing so the most efficient way possible.

I assumed that anyone who considered "trap options" to be a big deal were the kinds of people who worried about it enough to be interested in a guide.

[hawklost]

And there's nothing wrong with that. You can play Pathfinder or 3.5 just fine without ever setting digital foot inside a forum or handbook.

But those people tend not to care about "trap options" since they can generally succeed regardless of build, even if they're not doing so the most efficient way possible.

I assumed that anyone who considered "trap options" to be a big deal were the kinds of people who worried about it enough to be interested in a guide.

The thing is, the only people who really appear to care about "trap options" are those who go around talking about how those options are terrible. Most of those same exact people see anything that doesn't give them the most optimized build to be worthless clutter in the books in the first place and that all that information should be removed from the books.

[akaddk]

This perfectly sums up my opinion of this thread and this issue:


http://youtu.be/vE-rt_rnNv4

[Psyren]

The thing is, the only people who really appear to care about "trap options" are those who go around talking about how those options are terrible. Most of those same exact people see anything that doesn't give them the most optimized build to be worthless clutter in the books in the first place and that all that information should be removed from the books.

Then I direct you to SpawnOfMorbo as he is the one who brought them up, not me.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The thing is, the only people who really appear to care about "trap options" are those who go around talking about how those options are terrible. Most of those same exact people see anything that doesn't give them the most optimized build to be worthless clutter in the books in the first place and that all that information should be removed from the books.

I've seen way to many casual gamers give up the game over the years because as some would say "I can't do anything, this sucks".

[akaddk]

I've seen way to many casual gamers give up the game over the years because as some would say "I can't do anything, this sucks".

This is the reason why I loathe games like 3.x, Pathfinder & GURPS. They all present the illusion of choice when in fact they require you to heavily specialise down a very narrow path in order to be effective at anything. I was constantly butting my head up against this restriction over simple things that a character really should have a reasonable chance to be able to do without having five feats or fifty character points invested in it. I always found myself being forced to take the "optimal" solution rather than the fun solution, simply because I knew without a shadow of a doubt that any option other than the optimal one had a snowflake's chance in Hell of succeeding.

[Psyren]

This is the reason why I loathe games like 3.x, Pathfinder & GURPS. They all present the illusion of choice when in fact they require you to heavily specialise down a very narrow path in order to be effective at anything. I was constantly butting my head up against this restriction over simple things that a character really should have a reasonable chance to be able to do without having five feats or fifty character points invested in it. I always found myself being forced to take the "optimal" solution rather than the fun solution, simply because I knew without a shadow of a doubt that any option other than the optimal one had a snowflake's chance in Hell of succeeding.

Of course they want you to specialize - that's what an adventuring party is, a team of specialists.

Also, "fun vs. optimal" is as false a dichotomy as they come.

[Knaight]

I've seen way to many casual gamers give up the game over the years because as some would say "I can't do anything, this sucks".

Exactly. The actual term "trap option" is reasonably largely to the more hardcore fanbase, but being annoyed at being ineffective isn't, and that can easily happen.

[Millennium]

Also, "fun vs. optimal" is as false a dichotomy as they come.
Not to the people who make these arguments, it isn't. They're trying to win at D&D.

[akaddk]

Not to the people who make these arguments, it isn't. They're trying to win at D&D.

Then the joke's on them. I already won D&D years ago.

[hawklost]

Not to the people who make these arguments, it isn't. They're trying to win at D&D.

The problem is the same thing that comes down to most MMOs. There are two very different styles of play and then those who don't mind doing either. In MMOs there are those who want to be able to play their way and see all content and then those who want to be optimized to beat all content the fastest (PVP and PVE even cause more issues here). Those in the middle don't mind playing with both people. In DnD, there are those who wish to be able to just play, this can consist of hoping around a one shot with random characters or even going around killing Great Dragons through a long campaign, they don't seem to mind if their characters are not the best at everything or even anything sometimes, they just want to play their own idea (which could be crazy controller, jack of all trades, weak old wizard who needs help getting up stairs, ect...), they aren't trying to optimize to anything but their idea for the character. The other extreme is those who want to be the 'best' at what they do, since that is usually fighting, they want to be the best at that, but it could also be the guy everyone looks to for all answers, these people feel they have to optimize their character and nothing else really appears to matter. They think anything that does not provide the best to the optimization to be useless (listen to them talk about how all Weapons on the table are worthless and only certain ones 'should' be used, otherwise the players are fools.) This goes for anything that is not the Best (same with those who won't take any feat/skill that doesn't get used the most).

These two kind of players pretty much both play a game called DnD but do not really play the same game. These two kind of players are best not mixed together in the same group in my opinion. The one player feels like the hardcore tries to take all the limelight and the hardcore feels that the one is screwing up the party mechanics by being less than 'the best'.

EDIT: Honsetly, any session of DnD that I have enjoyed playing/DMing means to me that I have won. It doesn't matter what happens next or if all our plans failed, or even if I just couldn't climb that steep cliff and kept falling down to the ground. As long as the group and I are laughing and enjoying ourselves, we have won.

[Pex]

My group takes the Winston Churchill approach. Pathfinder is the worst form of RPG, except for all the others that have been tried. :smallbiggrin:
Some players don't like particular aspects. The Rules Lawyer doesn't like the lack of realism in some of the rules, such as no facing. Another player just doesn't like archery having tried it as a rogue and a ranger yet never satisfied with his effect on combat. Another player tried playing a Trip-based fighter, but bad timing after creating the character we were in a module that had too many monsters that were large, multi-legged, flying, and/or incorporeal he couldn't use the tactic often enough. He switched to a barbarian based around using AoOs and is a having a blast. However, despite the grumblings they all really do like the game and have no reason or desire to switch, granted money spent already on the game is a contributing factor.

5E offers nothing they're not already enjoying.

[Knaight]

Some players don't like particular aspects. The Rules Lawyer doesn't like the lack of realism in some of the rules, such as no facing.

Honestly, lacking facing doesn't seem unrealistic - with a six second round time, having facing would allow a bunch of ludicrous stuff like starting in front of someone, walking around behind them while they stand there, and stabbing them in the back. Six seconds is more than enough time to turn around repeatedly.

There are facing related rules that I dislike from a realism perspective - flanking is pretty useless, and some of the stuff that doesn't flank is kind of absurd. For instance, this grid:
-X-
XC-
X-X

Where C is the the character who is surrounded and X is their enemies doesn't actually involve any flanking, which is absurd. Still, facing isn't what would fix that.

[Pex]

Honestly, lacking facing doesn't seem unrealistic - with a six second round time, having facing would allow a bunch of ludicrous stuff like starting in front of someone, walking around behind them while they stand there, and stabbing them in the back. Six seconds is more than enough time to turn around repeatedly.

There are facing related rules that I dislike from a realism perspective - flanking is pretty useless, and some of the stuff that doesn't flank is kind of absurd. For instance, this grid:
-X-
XC-
X-X

Where C is the the character who is surrounded and X is their enemies doesn't actually involve any flanking, which is absurd. Still, facing isn't what would fix that.

It's takes a lot of effort to convince our Rules Lawyer to change his mind or prove him wrong, but it can be done. :smallyuk:

Given your graph redone

-1-
2C-
3-4

the Rules lawyer would argue, with facing, Character C facing to the left can use his shield AC against 2 & 3, no shield but rest of his AC against 1 and 4 but 4 gets +2 to hit. I do not know if 4 was a rogue he would get sneak attack damage in his line of thinking, but I'll lean to yes. 1, 2, & 3 would not.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's takes a lot of effort to convince our Rules Lawyer to change his mind or prove him wrong, but it can be done. :smallyuk:

Given your graph redone

-1-
2C-
3-4

the Rules lawyer would argue, with facing, Character C facing to the left can use his shield AC against 2 & 3, no shield but rest of his AC against 1 and 4 but 4 gets +2 to hit. I do not know if 4 was a rogue he would get sneak attack damage in his line of thinking, but I'll lean to yes. 1, 2, & 3 would not.

I take exception to your comments on rules lawyers.

it isn't about being wrong or right, it is about being fair. If players come to the table expecting to use X rules then it isn't fair to just change things in mid game or without prior awareness.

I'm a rules lawyer in two instances, when it is funny (drowning to heal) or when it saves my party's ass (which this one is used 90% of the time).

Facing is a pretty stupid rule, one that I always houseruled out, using facing basically makes anyone choppy. Battle should be flowing. Being a rules lawyer doesn't mean we aren't against house ruling.

/shrug

[Knaight]

It's takes a lot of effort to convince our Rules Lawyer to change his mind or prove him wrong, but it can be done. :smallyuk:

Given your graph redone

-1-
2C-
3-4

the Rules lawyer would argue, with facing, Character C facing to the left can use his shield AC against 2 & 3, no shield but rest of his AC against 1 and 4 but 4 gets +2 to hit. I do not know if 4 was a rogue he would get sneak attack damage in his line of thinking, but I'll lean to yes. 1, 2, & 3 would not.

That sounds pretty typical - I'd just argue that it's kind of dumb with a 6 second round. I do enough armed sparring to know that even when you've got an effective flank an individual can use their shield against all of their attackers. It's not as effective against any of them as it would otherwise be, which is where things like flanking bonuses come in, but it's not like anyone who has any clue what they're doing is going to just interpose their shield as a wall to one side and not even try to protect themselves from the people behind them.

Basically, it's a realism change that makes things significantly less realistic, and those tend to annoy me to no end.

[Pex]

I take exception to your comments on rules lawyers.

it isn't about being wrong or right, it is about being fair. If players come to the table expecting to use X rules then it isn't fair to just change things in mid game or without prior awareness.

I'm a rules lawyer in two instances, when it is funny (drowning to heal) or when it saves my party's ass (which this one is used 90% of the time).

Facing is a pretty stupid rule, one that I always houseruled out, using facing basically makes anyone choppy. Battle should be flowing. Being a rules lawyer doesn't mean we aren't against house ruling.

/shrug

I'm not harping on Rules Lawyers. I'm harping against my group's Rules Lawyer. When he's proven wrong or changes his mind, it's because I out-Rules Lawyered him. :smallbiggrin: I'm the only one who's been able to do it. Not 100%, but I have my victories.

He actually respects me for it.

[Vitruviansquid]

Here's one thing Pathfinder/3.5 will have that 5e will never have: a headstart on fixes, houserules, and homebrews that can turn even an objectively terrible rulebook into something fun and playable.

Anything 5e does poorly is something it does poorly while anything Pathfinder/3.5 does poorly probably already has five fixes online.

[Lord Raziere]

Here's one thing Pathfinder/3.5 will have that 5e will never have: a headstart on fixes, houserules, and homebrews that can turn even an objectively terrible rulebook into something fun and playable.

Anything 5e does poorly is something it does poorly while anything Pathfinder/3.5 does poorly probably already has five fixes online.

you can say the same for 4e, 2e, and almost any other system in existence. its not a system advantage, its a time advantage, one that will deplete as time goes on, due to how easy they're making it to homebrew 5e. and with a simpler system, its faster and easier to come up with fixes that make it playable.

[hawklost]

Here's one thing Pathfinder/3.5 will have that 5e will never have: a headstart on fixes, houserules, and homebrews that can turn even an objectively terrible rulebook into something fun and playable.

Anything 5e does poorly is something it does poorly while anything Pathfinder/3.5 does poorly probably already has five fixes online.

And 2e has a head start on Pathfinder/3.5and 1e has a headstart on all of the above. That does not mean that it is better or that a newer system doesn't do something superior.

Also, please find me the fixes for online related to the huge non-bounding issues in 3.5 and PF. In 3.5 you can get a +18 to a skill on first level but there is nothing that fixes this, in fact, more rulebooks make this easier, not harder to do.

[Dimcair]

Good points on all sides here.
A thing I'd like to back people up on:

hawklost talked about the two different kinds of play.

My process in creating a character is locking myself in a room with scrap paper and a computer for about 8 hours. Then, the room is full of paper, my browser has about 5 PDFs, 30+ tabs and at least one or two spreadsheets open. This is part of the fun for me and I suppose it is as well for Psyren and many others on this board.

Now, I argue that 5 edition serves the second kind of play, the casual one and can't offer the first kind of experience at this moment and in the near future.

-

While 3.P CAN.
It is easy enough to make a basic character for people who only dive casually in the possibilities. And for people who like to dive deeper into the matter as part of the hobby it also presents opportunities.
Now the problems come when the DM has the Batman Wizard on the one side and the Monk on the other. But as often suggested on this board you can balance it out to a degree in taking a 'Tier 4/5' class and try to make it work better.

But I am being shown that it might be too early to assume this with all certainty.

[Mr.Moron]

Reading through the rules I almost without exception like every implementation in 5e next more than I do in 3.P. If feels very much like those editions but trimmed of all the excess fatty bits. It really is the same game overall just a much leaner and meaner version.

It seems WotC learned a lesson on coherency and consistency from 4e, while trying to take a step back from the complexity.

Can't wait to run it really.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I have the opposite opinion really: 5E to me looks like they started from third edition, then at almost every point either took huge steps backwards (Feats, Action Economy) or made only nominal, haphazard fixes to the problems at best (Advantage/Disadvantage, Spells).

[pwykersotz]

I have the opposite opinion really: 5E to me looks like they started from third edition, then at almost every point either took huge steps backwards (Feats, Action Economy) or made only nominal, haphazard fixes to the problems at best (Advantage/Disadvantage, Spells).

It's funny, I guess it really is tough to make a game for all people. Ah well. :smallsmile:

[T.G. Oskar]

I have the opposite opinion really: 5E to me looks like they started from third edition, then at almost every point either took huge steps backwards (Feats, Action Economy) or made only nominal, haphazard fixes to the problems at best (Advantage/Disadvantage, Spells).

Mind explaining the bit in bold? Because I feel Action Economy was handled here pretty well.

To explain: one of the big problems in 3.5 was how spellcasters had more actions than mundanes did. Your typical spellcaster had, just in core, the Quicken Spell and Time Stop. Out of Core, there's Celerity (and its Lesser variant), Lion's Charge (move + attack via pounce) and Arcane Spellsurge. Psions had the equivalents to Lion's Charge and Time Stop, and Hustle is effectively Lesser Celerity without the daze effect. Mundanes had no innate way to work more actions: even the Ruby Knight Vindicator required some degree of spellcasting ability, after all. Pathfinder STILL has the Core options, and if using Dreamscarred Press' content, so does Psionics. Mundanes have even LESS options for additional actions, as far as I know, since some of the actions that didn't require spending a valuable standard action (Grapple, for example) were lost, and getting to do something while fighting requires several feats and sacrifices (Quick Bull Rush, for example: about 4 feats and your highest BAB to make a Bull Rush attack, not to mention your Swift action).

5e cut one action in that regard (the "Move" action; movement is not an action now, though you're still limited to a certain amount of movement per round) and integrated Action Economy now: you can split your movement before and after your Action, for example. This is more notable with attacks, particularly for Martial characters who get Extra Attack (or monsters with Multiattack, maybe?), but it's not inherently limited to it. Swift and Immediate Actions were merely renamed (Bonus Action and Reaction), and they're separate actions (you still get only one Reaction and one Bonus Action per round). Quicken Spell as a feat doesn't exist at the moment, so the only thing casters (and namely, Wizards) have to break Action Economy is Time Stop...which has the same restrictions as per 3.PF, but with the "sustain" mechanic for buffs, it means having lots of actions but little meaning to them. Two of the Big Four classes have innate, feature-wise ways to get more actions, and none of them are the casters; they're the Mundanes. Fighter gets Action Surge 1/long rest (eventually 2/long rest), and Rogues get Cunning Action for certain actions (which eventually improve with the Thief Roguish Archetype). In this case, Mundanes have the edge compared to casters.

If the problem is that EVERY character has to have the same actions and no more, that's just as flawed as casters being the only ones having extra actions. The reason being because it'd cripple the Rogue, who lacks an Extra Action trait, and who can benefit from actions such as Disengage (remain out of attack range) or Hide (can't touch this!), while not really affecting the Fighter (it still gets Extra Attack for up to 4 attacks per round, and can still move and attack between them) or the casters (they still get to use their spell, after all).

IMO, Actions were one of the things 5e got right. 3.5 relies too much on drawing as much juice from all the actions you have available, and this is doubly true when you have a companion of sorts. I need to see how the Beastmaster Ranger will work, but this could be a VERY strong reason why the Ranger could be a strong class (or one that has an archetype/subclass that's Awesome but Impractical, or worse, effectively useless). The Fighter could end up with the dichotomy of "I use my 4 attacks twice per round", but that's not as creative as saying "I Shove with my first attack, attack with the other two, spend Action Surge, move and attack with the first three, then grapple at the end", or any variation thereof (Battlemaster: "I spend a Superiority Dice between my attacks"'; Eldritch Knight: "I cast a spell on my first turn, then attack on the second"). The Rogue might find the problem of not being able to use its bonus action because it has already spent it somewhere else. However, this is not really a huge problem, because the amount of options for both classes are roughly enough; nowhere between "I have no options but X" or "I have too many options, and half of them I can't use" or "I have too many options, and too many of them are too good".

On topic: when I saw Pathfinder at first, I didn't like it. Call it grognardise, but I didn't felt it was as flexible as 3.5, or that it really dealt with the problems in it. I still believe that, but there's a few things that on second look seem impressive (Dazing Assault is one of the things I'd steal shamelessly from Pathfinder in my 3.5 game; I've been using the PF Fighter instead of the 3.5 Fighter just because it's Fighter+; some of the brand-new classes are interesting to look, such as Magus and Inquisitor); that doesn't mean I'm gonna shift to PF at any moment OR that I'm gonna start praising it. I could have praised the PF Paladin were it not because I still found flaws within it, despite the chassis being better than the 3.5 one (the spell list, for example, still lack some Cleric spells that could have fit the Paladin), and because I had already done work on fixing the class. All I can say is that you shouldn't expect me to play Pathfinder with excitement, let alone DM a game of it.

However, I can at least tolerate PF. I simply can't tolerate anything of 4e, or perhaps something too small to make it meaningful. I will admit I was excited at first for the new edition, and I even bought the Races and Classes booklet to see what was coming, but then I could give a good look at the Player's Handbook and the early handbooks, and I instinctively realized the game wasn't for me. Up until now, I loathe 4e, and not even Essentials has done anything to make it worthwhile. At first I could hear some praise, but the few 4e players I knew got into Pathfinder almost immediately, and from then onward all I could hear was horror stories. Some can be easily debunked: the insistence on powers, the idea that all powers are mostly the same thing but with different fluff (I cling to this concept as one of the reasons I don't like it, but mostly because it feels like the fluff was forced, rather than applied seamlessly), skill challenges, class progression being effectively the same, anyone almost effortlessly reaching the same numbers, no Aasimar...

I entered 5e by looking at one of the leaked playtests (a rather early one, which had the Paladin), and I wasn't really excited by it. However, once the Basic Rules were released, I was honestly surprised. The biggest surprise with the new edition was just how easy was to "grok"; I skimmed the PDF, and I could get most of the things almost instantly. Perhaps that was because I was already a 3.5 player, or because I played Dragon Age, but everything in it was very simple. Some things were honest surprises: the disappearance of the move action per se, the ability to split movement, merging Bull Rush and Trip into a very simple mechanic, the simplest Grapple rules in existence, former feats now becoming base mechanics (Two-Weapon Fighting was this for the 2nd Edition of the rules, but Weapon Finesse wasn't as far as I recall; seeing Finesse as a weapon keyword was an honest surprise), races being enticing (High Elf and the free cantrip, Halfling and its bonus reroll, Dwarf getting better proficiencies, no racial ability score penalties at all), mundane classes with innate Action Economy, the proficiencies...everything sorta clicked. I took the last playtest I could see, and the rest of the content was mostly promising (the Paladin in particular).

There's stuff from 5e that I don't like, sure. It's not challenging from an optimization perspective. The Paladin's Divine Smite seems to be troubling. Wizards and Clerics are still powerhouses, and Clerics in particular with Divine Intervention. Attacks of Opportunity now requiring a reaction. There's a few others, but they seem really minor compared to what they did right, IMO.

In all honesty, I won't stop playing (or running) 3.5, because I'm really used to it. I probably won't play Pathfinder unless convinced, and even then begrudgingly. I'll never play 4e. But, I gave the chance to 5e and thus far it's fair enough to play. I know I can count on two editions of D&D to play, at the very least.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Mind explaining the bit in bold? Because I feel Action Economy was handled here pretty well.

My problem with the 5E action economy setup is that its execution goes against its intent: The developers want to have their cake and eat it too by "streamlining" the action economy down to two elements, Move and Action, but also have complex round-by-round choices (for casters only for the most part). Instead of the unified setup of Full/Standard/Move/Minor/Immediate we now have to deal with everything working under its own rules of when they can be used and what they can't be used in combination with.

To be fair, in the basic set at least, the problematic abilities have been unified under the banners of "bonus actions" and "reactions" (which really sounds to me like "Hey we remembered why we invented swift/minor and immediate actions in the first place but we refuse to admit we ****ed up so we're just gonna call them something different and pretend we're innovating"), but in the playtest documents things were really fiddly and dumb. Maybe they'll carry these lessons over to the rest of the PHB, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[obryn]

However, I can at least tolerate PF. I simply can't tolerate anything of 4e, or perhaps something too small to make it meaningful. I will admit I was excited at first for the new edition, and I even bought the Races and Classes booklet to see what was coming, but then I could give a good look at the Player's Handbook and the early handbooks, and I instinctively realized the game wasn't for me. Up until now, I loathe 4e, and not even Essentials has done anything to make it worthwhile. At first I could hear some praise, but the few 4e players I knew got into Pathfinder almost immediately, and from then onward all I could hear was horror stories. Some can be easily debunked: the insistence on powers, the idea that all powers are mostly the same thing but with different fluff (I cling to this concept as one of the reasons I don't like it, but mostly because it feels like the fluff was forced, rather than applied seamlessly), skill challenges, class progression being effectively the same, anyone almost effortlessly reaching the same numbers, no Aasimar...
Give it a try with a good DM; it's an excellent game that does a number of things better than any other edition of D&D. Much like I said to the OP, the more different RPGs you play, the better you get at all RPGs. There's lessons to be learned about both play and design in almost all of them.

[Sartharina]

My problem with the 5E action economy setup is that its execution goes against its intent: The developers want to have their cake and eat it too by "streamlining" the action economy down to two elements, Move and Action, but also have complex round-by-round choices (for casters only for the most part). Instead of the unified setup of Full/Standard/Move/Minor/Immediate we now have to deal with everything working under its own rules of when they can be used and what they can't be used in combination with.

To be fair, in the basic set at least, the problematic abilities have been unified under the banners of "bonus actions" and "reactions" (which really sounds to me like "Hey we remembered why we invented swift/minor and immediate actions in the first place but we refuse to admit we ****ed up so we're just gonna call them something different and pretend we're innovating"), but in the playtest documents things were really fiddly and dumb. Maybe they'll carry these lessons over to the rest of the PHB, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The new system works MUCH better than 3e's Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, and Full-round action bull****. I can play an actually effective fighter in 5e. In 3e, I cannot because of the bull**** "You must stand still to Full Attack" garbage.

Also - Monks are awesome now, because their mobility and extra attacks synergize instead of conflict.

Furthermore - fighters and rogues have plenty of interesting but quickly-decided round-per-round actions, depending on the environment.

[T.G. Oskar]

Give it a try with a good DM; it's an excellent game that does a number of things better than any other edition of D&D. Much like I said to the OP, the more different RPGs you play, the better you get at all RPGs. There's lessons to be learned about both play and design in almost all of them.

Trust me, I was excited at first, but there's little the system can do to help. Earlier editions are at times needlessly complex and also worthy of horror stories (Player's Guide to Elves being one of those), but just by looking at the PHB I can withstand some of the limitations. In fact, I would, if permitted, play a Paladin even if I needed insanely good rolls to get it and play even more carefully lest I end up a spell-less Fighter after doing something that doesn't seem bad at first instance. Even if limited and requiring an entirely different choice of tools to play, it still has worth. 4e really doesn't offer me that; the first impression is too strong to make me change my mind (only two things have done that to me in order to say, no matter the argument, that I won't even touch it: the first is the first Persona series doing damage to the entire series, and the second is Final Fantasy XIII). I'd have to see Essentials REALLY close to see if it did something, but vanilla 4e is something I expect never to touch (even with a 10-ft. pole).

That said, don't think I've been playing only D&D. My first RPG experience was GURPS 3rd Edition, and on a game that was already undergoing (almost at the end, really, since the GM was on its last year of college studies). While I've been playing D&D the most, I've also played a bit of Exalted (and I'd love to have a GM that throws Aberrant, since I consider that take on capes and supers extremely interesting compared to others), played some more GURPS (a Marvel Universe Supers variant, starting at 3rd Edition and recently switching to 4th at the GMs request), played the Dragon Age RPG (a reason why I probably also like 5e; Dragon Age is super easy to understand, super easy to play, and quite fun), and while I would like to play rather than GM, I've also done my stint at Shadowrun 4e (though I'd really love to play it to understand some concepts, since my stint as a GM has been full of accidents). That's three different systems and a bit of a fourth, so it's not exactly the same situation as the OP; my qualms with 4e go beyond not having experienced many games.

[Kurald Galain]

The new system works MUCH better than 3e's Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, and Full-round action bull****.

Why, though? It strikes me that it's exactly the same, except that they've renamed "swift" to "bonus", and "immediate action" to "reaction".

[Knaight]

Why, though? It strikes me that it's exactly the same, except that they've renamed "swift" to "bonus", and "immediate action" to "reaction".

It's not. The big difference is that 3e had a distinct move action where you made your move, whereas 5e has a floating move you can apply whenever. This has very big implications once you get to things like multiple attacks - a 5e character with 4 attacks can hit someone, move 10 feet, hit someone, move 10 feet, hit someone, move 10 feet, and hit someone. That sort of thing in 3e takes either particular feats (and even Spring Attack isn't that viable) or particular prestige classes (e.g. Dervish).

There are some upsides to this, such as the mobility of advanced martial characters being a lot better. There are also downsides, namely the infamous goblin conga line, where it's entirely too easy for a large group to run in, take a swing, and run out, one at a time, even if this involves sudden directional changes and they should logically be obstructing each other.

[Kurald Galain]

It's not. The big difference is that 3e had a distinct move action where you made your move, whereas 5e has a floating move you can apply whenever. This has very big implications once you get to things like multiple attacks
Good point, it has some different implications, but given that these lead to the Goblin Conga Line problem, how exactly is it "MUCH better" than anything we've seen earlier?

[hawklost]

Good point, it has some different implications, but given that these lead to the Goblin Conga Line problem, how exactly is it "MUCH better" than anything we've seen earlier?

Its a matter of opinion. Its a matter of how you like to play a game. Since you do not enjoy that style, nothing anyone tries to explain to you will work in your book.

Reasons it Could be better if you like that sort of thing:
- Melee can move in, attack and step to the side
- Ranged can walk out into the open, fire when target is best seen and then continue moving
- IT gives all 5e a free feat compared to 3e (considering most of you complain about less feats)
- It allows a Melee to dash in, get a hit and then dash back out before the Caster does an AoE
- It allows more tactical movement related to cover
- It keeps people from being stuck at a certain range because it was the range of their attack (30ft for sneak attack? Well, rogue, you are stuck at that range since the enemy was 40ft away at the beginning of your turn and you want to stay as far back as possible)

Now, if you do not like any of these reasons, well others don't like Swift/Immediate/Free style actions themselves. To each their own.

[Knaight]

Good point, it has some different implications, but given that these lead to the Goblin Conga Line problem, how exactly is it "MUCH better" than anything we've seen earlier?

It's a useful simplification, and I'd consider the goblin conga line problem a small price to pay for meaningful mobility of martial characters, particularly as it's not all that likely to actually come into play that much. Weirdness involving ranged combat and running between cover is a little more irritating, but readied actions solve that nicely.

Plus, as long as we're talking about weirdness, the whole discrete turn structure on its own is pretty bizarre. First one person moves and does all their actions, then another, then another, all down the line? We're all pretty used to this, but it's a way bigger break from reality than the goblin conga line or anything like it.

[Sartharina]

Its a matter of opinion. Its a matter of how you like to play a game. Since you do not enjoy that style, nothing anyone tries to explain to you will work in your book.

Reasons it Could be better if you like that sort of thing:
- Melee can move in, attack and step to the side
- Ranged can walk out into the open, fire when target is best seen and then continue moving
- IT gives all 5e a free feat compared to 3e (considering most of you complain about less feats)
- It allows a Melee to dash in, get a hit and then dash back out before the Caster does an AoE
- It allows more tactical movement related to cover
- It keeps people from being stuck at a certain range because it was the range of their attack (30ft for sneak attack? Well, rogue, you are stuck at that range since the enemy was 40ft away at the beginning of your turn and you want to stay as far back as possible)

Now, if you do not like any of these reasons, well others don't like Swift/Immediate/Free style actions themselves. To each their own.

More practically, it allows the Monk to move into melee, punch someone, move to the next target, punch them as well, and keep going. Or fighter to hack through a small swarm of goblins, without ever ending up with only 1/4th his assumed damage output (Because he loses iteratives or bonus attacks for daring to move more than 5 feet), and carve through the opposition.

The goblin conga line is more of a result of the opportunity attack issue (Which I don't like).

[ImperiousLeader]

The main advantage is that there are fewer things to do in a turn. You can move, and take an action ... and maybe a bonus action. As much as I like 4e ... the thing I did notice was that everyone tried to use their minor action. Sometimes twice if you didn't move. There was a strong desire to make sure you used all your available actions. Now, I have no doubt that that'll happen in 5e, but only getting one bonus action, and even calling it a "bonus action" means PCs simply have fewer actions to take.

And I have no desire to see the return of 3.5/Pathfinder's "full-round action". No thank you.

[pwykersotz]

More practically, it allows the Monk to move into melee, punch someone, move to the next target, punch them as well, and keep going. Or fighter to hack through a small swarm of goblins, without ever ending up with only 1/4th his assumed damage output (Because he loses iteratives or bonus attacks for daring to move more than 5 feet), and carve through the opposition.

The goblin conga line is more of a result of the opportunity attack issue (Which I don't like).

Alas, by my reading they still take opportunity attacks for doing so.

[Sartharina]

Alas, by my reading they still take opportunity attacks for doing so.

Yes, unless they grab the mobility feat, or KO/throw away the people they punch.


Something I wish monks had was "Anyone you successfully strike has disadvantage on their next attack" as a class feature, giving them a distinct BFC role and encouraging them to split up their numerous attacks among all combatants, as they tend to do in martial arts movies and games, instead of making them weak-weaponed Low-HD fighters that kinda suck.

[akaddk]

Or just use Disengage.

[Sartharina]

Or just use Disengage.

No. That's an action that precludes punching people.

[akaddk]

No. That's an action that precludes punching people.

Ah, interesting, they made it an Action. Still, if the monk gets Extra Attack like the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and probably Ranger, they'd be able to do it as well as breaking up their movement as per normal which would make for some pretty epic Wuxia manoeuvres.

[da_chicken]

Well, you could move, grapple, move, grapple, and then finish your move. You drag people with you when you grapple.

That could be kind of funny given the terrain. Fighter with a ring of feather falling grapples an opponent, moves and grapples a second opponent, and then jumps off a cliff.

[HorridElemental]

I heard something about the monk that I'm very disappointed about.

You can't TWF with your unarmed strikes even as a monk, you have to use Ki to flurry.

This makes no sense to me, apparently you can TWF with a daggers or handaxes but if you drop those weapons your hands and feet are just to heavy/unwieldly to use in the same manner?

Heck I think anyone should be able to duel wield their unarmed strikes, or are we saying bare knuckle boxers can't combo their attacks unless they put on gloves?

[Beleriphon]

Heck I think anyone should be able to duel wield their unarmed strikes, or are we saying bare knuckle boxers can't combo their attacks unless they put on gloves?

No, we're saying that an unarmed strike isn't necessarily a punch, or even a punch with a kick, it might be a head butt (and the Metal Heads from Brutal Legend not withstanding) I don't see that happeing multiple times in a row. Its silly, but the point I suppose is that the game reserves higher damage unarmed attacks for monks rather than everybody (which is why unarmed attacks normally only deal 1 point of damage).

[HorridElemental]

No, we're saying that an unarmed strike isn't necessarily a punch, or even a punch with a kick, it might be a head butt (and the Metal Heads from Brutal Legend not withstanding) I don't see that happeing multiple times in a row. Its silly, but the point I suppose is that the game reserves higher damage unarmed attacks for monks rather than everybody (which is why unarmed attacks normally only deal 1 point of damage).

However unarmed strike can be a punch or a kick.

So saying you can't TWF with them, even when you take the TWF feat, is just straight up silly.

Heck, Legend of the Drunken Master, tell me Jackie Chan isn't TWF with headbutts and kicks to the face. He sure isn't a monk using Ki...

[1of3]

Heck, Legend of the Drunken Master, tell me Jackie Chan isn't TWF with headbutts and kicks to the face. He sure isn't a monk using Ki...

If this was D&D, he would be.

And you do not actually have to spend ki, for the bonus attack. Monks can always use a bonus action for a single unarmed attack, provided they already attacked with a Monk weapon. Spending ki makes that two extra attacks. And you only get ki at second level.

[HorridElemental]

If this was D&D, he would be.

And you do not actually have to spend ki, for the bonus attack. Monks can always use a bonus action for a single unarmed attack, provided they already attacked with a Monk weapon. Spending ki makes that two extra attacks. And you only get ki at second level.

More of a rogue really, or perhaps a fighter... There is nothing monk-ish about his character in that movie. Unless you want to equate martial arts to monk which is a bit unfair to the other classes and fluffing their abilities.

Does the Ki attacks only include weapon damage (unarmed die) or can you add modifiers?

[Millennium]

Heck, Legend of the Drunken Master, tell me Jackie Chan isn't TWF with headbutts and kicks to the face. He sure isn't a monk using Ki...
So scratch out 'Ki' on your character sheet and put the word 'Alcohol' in its place.

[1of3]

Unless you want to equate martial arts to monk which is a bit unfair to the other classes and fluffing their abilities.

That is exactly not only my intention, but the apparent intention of the game. The first class feature of the Monk is called "Martial Arts". The best other characters can become is a "Tavern Brawler" (feat).

Even Ninjas are Monks, as per the book's text. It's a suggested name for Monks on the Path of Shadow. The other is Shadowdancer.



Does the Ki attacks only include weapon damage (unarmed die) or can you add modifiers?

I don't understand the question.

[Cainen]

The new system works MUCH better than 3e's Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, and Full-round action bull****. I can play an actually effective fighter in 5e. In 3e, I cannot because of the bull**** "You must stand still to Full Attack" garbage.
Once you get away from the lowest levels, the 5E Fighter does less damage to a monster with all of their attacks than a two-handed 3E Fighter will do to a comparably tough monster with a single attack. I wouldn't call that effective.

[Stubbazubba]

Its a matter of opinion. Its a matter of how you like to play a game. Since you do not enjoy that style, nothing anyone tries to explain to you will work in your book.

I'm not seeing how concerns over mobility is indicative of a different style of play.


Reasons it Could be better if you like that sort of thing:
- Melee can move in, attack and step to the side
- Ranged can walk out into the open, fire when target is best seen and then continue moving
- IT gives all 5e a free feat compared to 3e (considering most of you complain about less feats)
- It allows a Melee to dash in, get a hit and then dash back out before the Caster does an AoE
- It allows more tactical movement related to cover
- It keeps people from being stuck at a certain range because it was the range of their attack (30ft for sneak attack? Well, rogue, you are stuck at that range since the enemy was 40ft away at the beginning of your turn and you want to stay as far back as possible)

Now, if you do not like any of these reasons, well others don't like Swift/Immediate/Free style actions themselves. To each their own.

Well, those are kind of balanced out because the enemies get all those advantages, too.


The main advantage is that there are fewer things to do in a turn. You can move, and take an action ... and maybe a bonus action. As much as I like 4e ... the thing I did notice was that everyone tried to use their minor action. Sometimes twice if you didn't move. There was a strong desire to make sure you used all your available actions. Now, I have no doubt that that'll happen in 5e, but only getting one bonus action, and even calling it a "bonus action" means PCs simply have fewer actions to take.

And I have no desire to see the return of 3.5/Pathfinder's "full-round action". No thank you.

That is an important shift; there are way too many decision points in a single turn, and even off your turn, in previous editions. While decision points are usually good, most rounds the decisions you are making with each and every possible action are just not worth the time it takes. There's an optimal number of decisions players should make each turn: more than 2 and the cost:benefit ratio drops off very fast.

That being said, 5e might still have really slow turns simply because of the ability to split up movement however you want: whereas a full attack traded off mobility for attacks (thereby keeping the number of decisions to be made down), multiple attacks in 5e are more like multiple whole turns, and therefore multiply the decisions to make out. We'll see how that plays out at the table, though.

[Sartharina]

Once you get away from the lowest levels, the 5E Fighter does less damage to a monster with all of their attacks than a two-handed 3E Fighter will do to a comparably tough monster with a single attack. I wouldn't call that effective.
That's because a 3e fighter could drop a CR 19 monster at level 12 because the math was all kinds of borked.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Once you get away from the lowest levels, the 5E Fighter does less damage to a monster with all of their attacks than a two-handed 3E Fighter will do to a comparably tough monster with a single attack. I wouldn't call that effective.Even if a 3.5 fighter did 1000 times more damage than a 5e fighter, the 5e fighter
could still be a stronger class, if the 5e fighter could do that much less damage and still reliably kill monsters.

[Millennium]

That's because a 3e fighter could drop a CR 19 monster at level 12 because the math was all kinds of borked.
Also, thanks to things like bounded accuracy, the numbers mean very different things. Related things, to be sure, but different enough that direct damage comparisons don't make a lot of sense.

[Kurald Galain]

Also, thanks to things like bounded accuracy, the numbers mean very different things. Related things, to be sure, but different enough that direct damage comparisons don't make a lot of sense.

Sure they do. A 5E character is bound by the BA and a 3E character is not, therefore at moderate to high levels, the 3E character is stronger if well-built, weaker if not. That means that where a 5E fighter will deal about 25% of the enemy's HP in damage to a level-appropriate opponent, a well-built 3E fighter can cut the (level-appropriate) enemy in half in a single round. That pretty obviously means that the 3E fighter is stronger.

[hawklost]

Sure they do. A 5E character is bound by the BA and a 3E character is not, therefore at moderate to high levels, the 3E character is stronger if well-built, weaker if not. That means that where a 5E fighter will deal about 25% of the enemy's HP in damage to a level-appropriate opponent, a well-built 3E fighter can cut the (level-appropriate) enemy in half in a single round. That pretty obviously means that the 3E fighter is stronger.

Actually, all that means is the number system sucked in 3e and was horribly broken. It doesn't mean one class was 'stronger' from one edition to another.

[Knaight]

Actually, all that means is the number system sucked in 3e and was horribly broken. It doesn't mean one class was 'stronger' from one edition to another.

I'd say that it's a pretty good piece of evidence for the high-op 3e fighter being a fair bit stronger. Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, personally I'd consider it indicative of systemic screwiness.

[Cainen]

I'd say that it's a pretty good piece of evidence for the high-op 3e fighter being a fair bit stronger. Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, personally I'd consider it indicative of systemic screwiness.
I'm not talking about high-op Fighters, see. The ubercharger is a different beast from some mediocre greatsword Fighter taking a large Power Attack penalty and hitting someone twice. Equal CR monsters past your first level in 5E are statistically similar to CR+2 monsters in 3E, having more HP than them and AC that is relatively better, but the 5E Fighter doesn't do anywhere close to the damage the 3E Fighter will.