Sell me on what make 5e better than pathfinder [Archive]

Strill

2015-09-01, 09:44 PM

It's vastly simplified mechanically, without losing much in the way of depth. For example, the vast majority of spells and effects which give minor stat adjustments now instead use the "advantage" and "disadvantage" system. In this system, you simply roll 2d20, and take the one that's highest (advantage) or lowest (disadvantage). You no longer have to recalculate huge lists of pluses and minuses.

5e addresses Martial vs Caster balance. First, casters have far fewer spell slots. Second, powerful spells use the "concentration" mechanic, preventing casters from using more than one concentration spell at the same time. While a caster is maintaining a concentration spell, they have to take a saving throw each time they take damage, or they lose their spell.

While 5e lowers the raw power of spellcasters, it also makes them more flexible. All casters in 5e are Spontaneous casters. You prepare a list of spells, but they aren't tied to individual spell slots. Like a PF Sorcerer, any spell may be cast in any spell slot of its level or higher.

5e fixes "caster level" problems and spell scaling. In PF, many spells have effects that scale with caster level. This means that multiclassed spellcasters are totally useless due to their low save DC. In 5e, your spell save DC scales with total level, not caster level, making multiclcassed casters a potential option. In Pathfinder, saving throw DCs scale with your spell level, meaning that your highest level spell slots are the only ones with a high enough save DC to be likely to succeed against high-level enemies. In 5e, all your class's spells have the same saving throw DC. For pathfinder spells whose effect scales on caster level, such as Magic Missile, 5e spells gain additional effects when cast in a higher level spell slot. So for example, Magic Missile cast in a 1st-level slot has 3 missiles, and in a 2nd-level slot would have 4 missiles. Many other spells which were effectively just more powerful variants of the same spell, are now subsumed into one spell. For example, the Cure Wounds family of spells are now simply "Cure Wounds", a first-level spell whose healing scales with the spell slot it's cast in.

5e fixes Multiple Ability Dependent (MAD) classes. In PF, Monks require far more ability scores and feats than other classes, just to be effective. In 5e, every class relies on Constitution and either one or two other ability scores. No class requires four or more ability scores to be effective.

5e makes Monks a viable class. PF monks have high mobility, and lots of attacks, but each of these features is mutually exclusive. In 5e, there are no longer "move actions", "standard actions", and "full actions". Instead, you have an amount of movement that you may use at any point in your turn, and if you choose to attack, you may make each attack at any time on your turn, and against any target in range. This means that a 5e monk with a total of four attacks can now run up to an enemy, hit them, move to another enemy, hit them, then move to two other enemies, and hit each of them, all in the same turn.

5e has Bounded Accuracy. In Pathfinder, the game is designed to scale such that your bonuses and penalties will eventually far outstrip lower-level enemies, to the point where it is literally imposssible for them to even hit you. In 5e, bonuses and penalties are far more constricted. The intent is that lower-level enemies in large enough groups can still pose a threat, even to higher-level players. This allows for a wider array of potential encounters.

AvatarVecna

2015-09-01, 09:49 PM

1. Relative simplicity.
--5e has a lot less going on than 3.5/PF/4e does, making it easier to understand the options available, and making system mastery easier as a result. The largest current spell list in 5e is the Wizard, who has ~250 spells on their class spell list, as opposed to the ~2500 that 3.5 had, and the estimated ~1400 PF had (I got to about 550 before reaching 4th lvl spells and extrapolated from there). In 3.5/4e/PF, there's hundreds of feats; here, there's a few dozen, and they're all balanced against a set stat bump. Virtually everything you do is a d20 roll of some kind, and there's very clear distinctions between the three main types of d20 rolls (attacks, saves, and ability checks). The simplicity of the in-game rules makes system mastery easier, and the simplicity of character creation means that even rolling up a high-level spellcaster isn't more than a half-hour's work, and maybe even less if you've already got a solid concept in mind.

2. Higher Floors/Lower Ceilings
--The balance in 5e between martials and casters is by no means perfect, but a 20th level full caster isn't nearly as all-powerful as they were in 3.P, and a 20th level martial character has lots of goodies to make up for the lack of magic, making martials relevant even in the high levels.

3. RAI>RAW
--There's a lot of stuff where, when rules seem to clash in some way, there's no need to search through the fine print to figure out exactly what happens; if you're theory-crafting, you make as much sense of it as you can; if you're trying to play, you ask your DM. RAW is still pretty important, but you need more than pure RAW to use the system; there has to be a good bit of RAI mixed in, even for theory-crafting stuff.

If you like 3.P for its fractal-like complexity...if you like how low the floors and how high the ceilings of optimization can be using such a complex system...if you prefer a game system that has rules covering such varied rules interactions that it could be coded as a game...then 5e might not be for you.

EDIT: As a possibly relevant point, I'll mention that 5e prepared spellcasters are all like the arcanist, from what I can tell. Also from what I can tell, the arcanist is considered fairly powerful for being even more flexible than a wizard.

Kane0

2015-09-01, 10:10 PM

This might be a good link for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358474-A-Grognard-s-Guide-to-5E-D-amp-D-Rules)

I advise grabbing the free materials and rolling up a 2-3 hour one shot. You can even adapt a PF module, it takes very little effort.
I did this with my regular PF group that had no 5e experience apart from me. It took one hour for me to help 5 guys create characters using one PhB, then took them just less than an hour to get the combat mechanics sorted as we blasted through about 6 encounters in one night.

I got some feedback form them afterwards and what I got was:
- It was fast to learn. Just Your stats and Attacks/Saves/Checks (no +/-s ! No ability/level drain! No stupid grapple/nonlethal rules! the list goes on.)
- It was simple to run (advantage system! Resistance! Simpler conditions!)
- It was good not to have to rely on magic equipment any more
- It was more balanced (bonded accuracy! proficiency! Concentration! No trap build options! Relevant noncasters!)
- It was better paced (short rests! Hit dice!)
- Everybody felt more special and unique (backgrounds! class abilities! subclasses! no feat taxes! totally different skills!
- They felt more like heroes, less like stat blocks (I attribute this to the language of the books, the power placed back to the DM to make a fun game and the better character generation experience)

However the veterans do miss the complexity and sheer amount of content a little bit, and one guy was particularly disappointed that there was no power attack.

Madfellow

2015-09-01, 10:13 PM

However one guy was particularly disappointed that there was no power attack.

There are feats for that: Great Weapon Master (for melee) and Sharpshooter (for ranged).

Kane0

2015-09-01, 10:20 PM

I told him that, he was all despondent when he said "Its just not the same..."

He was kidding of course, he was fully aware that he didn't actually need it to be considered a competent fighter. It was just that ingrained in him.

dropbear8mybaby

2015-09-01, 10:26 PM

Well, the best reason is that if you're playing Pathfinder then you're playing Pathfinder. And that's the best reason ever to switch to 5e :smallbiggrin:

Pex

2015-09-01, 10:26 PM

It's not better, just different. Obviously there a different rules in play. Game mechanics are different enough that it's just a matter of taste. 5E does have one thing going for it over Pathfinder - less "fiddly bits". You aren't stacking up bonuses of +1 or +2 from several different sources that you need to keep track of to determine your total attack modifier, damage, AC, saving throws. That can overwhelm some people, but the "fiddly bits" of Pathfinder are not an atrocious abomination. It's just a factor of the game. I happen to like those "fiddly bits".

What Pathfinder has over 5E is options of stuff to do. It's not number of classes. It's unfair to compare all the books Pathfinder now has to just the one book 5E has (or is it two now not counting DM stuff?). Choices within a class are more numerous and happen more often. Pathfinder PCs get to do more stuff.

It's all a matter of subjective taste, not objective comparison.

Kane0

2015-09-01, 10:33 PM

Such Fiddly bits including but not limited to:

Spell Resistance
Damage Resistance
Damage Reduction
+/- X to Y
CMB/CMD
Ability Damage/Drain
Ability Increases & Feats (exchanged for ASI class features)
Negative Levels
Caster level (exchanged for working from spell slot used)
Move actions
Free actions
BAB/Save progression (exchanged for proficiency bonus)
Bonus spells/day
Favored Class bonuses
Skill ranks (exchanged for proficiency)

New things introduced

Backgrounds
Hit dice
Short rests
Concentration mechanic
Advantage/disadvantage
Resistance
One save for each stat
Proficiency
New multiclassing rules (multiclass casters!)

Demonic Spoon

2015-09-01, 10:52 PM

I really like pathfinder, but don't want to be close minded, but I don't want to just learn a whole system to learn it. If you like 5E better than pathfinder, tell me why.

Some good points have already been made in this thread. I'll preface this by saying I've never played PF, only 3.5. Anyway, after playing 5e I would never go back to 3.5 or Pathfinder for a few reasons:

When prepping a session as a DM, 3.5 felt like an exercise in math rather than an exercise in creativity. If I wanted a mid-level NPC, the system expectation was that I build out a full character with an actual class with feats and other stuff included. In 5e, no such assumption exists - there is a table in the back of the DMG with some baseline stats for each CR (damage/hitpoints/AC/etc) and some guidelines on calculating CR of a creature given a particular statblock. Using this, it takes me no more than a few minutes to throw together the appropriate stats and tweak up or down to get an NPC that does what I want it to.

Going off the above, homebrew monsters/NPCs is really easy. I have created tons of brand new monsters to fit into my own game, something I'd never have considered trying with 3.5. This ease is in part due to the flattened math.

In 5e, magic items and equipment are not necessarily assumed - the game balance doesn't hinge on players having +X to all their saves by level Y. There's a much heavier emphasis on magic equipment with cool utility powers rather than just making your numbers bigger. This means that when I prep my session, I can just plant loot appropriately without having to worry about whether my players are going to be over/underpowered for their level, and whether or not they're just going to sell the cool magical loot in order to give their sword another +1d6 damage.

Storytelling, I find, is a lot easier due to bounded accuracy. In 3.5, power levels scale such that enemies you face at level 1 aren't even worth mentioning by level 6. You can't have a long overarchming campaign centered around a hobgoblin invasion because as soon as your players hit the mid levels, hobgoblins cease to be a credible threat. The only way around this is to scale up the CR of the mooks they fight - which in part makes players feel like they haven't actually gained anything since their prior levels. In 5e, bounded accuracy ensures that large numbers of low CR creatures are still a threat. They are going to need overwhelming numbers in order to be a threat, but they are in fact still a threat.

Balance. In 3.5e (I have read that Pathfinder is slightly better, but fundamentally similar), I would have to start worrying if I was putting together a game and player one wanted to play a wizard and player two wanted to play a monk. I'd have to either pressure the wizard player to play something weaker, pressure the monk player to play something stronger, or some mixture of the two. If I have a new player at my table full of otherwise experienced gamers, I am going to have to hold his hand through all aspects of character development just to make sure that he is properly optimized alongside the rest of the party. If I don't - I allow a new player to bumble around and make poor build decisions, or allow someone to play a Monk in a party of tier 1 classes, that player isn't going to have much fun.
In 5e, this is not a concern. There is simply no class that is mechanically so weak that they will never feel like they bring anything to the party, and it's very hard for even a new player to build a completely ineffective character. If there is a power differential between members of the same party, most of the time it will go unnoticed.

Finally, ease of play. I can get through several combats in a session with more than ample time for RP and other adventuring stuff. Everything just runs faster and more smoothly. Less time is spent digging through character sheets for abilities, math'ing out how many +s you get to your attack roll, what Step 2 of the grapple rules are, etc. Less time is spend looking up rules and more time is spend actually playing D&D.

One thing I'll say with regards to the criticism about lack of character building options: This criticism is fair in terms of mechanical options - PF and 3.5 straight up have way more (though poor balance ensures that many are terrible). However, I would argue that in terms of narrative character concepts, 5e isn't as far behind 3.5/PF as you might think. In 3.5, if you want a rogue-ish, skirmishing archer, you need to take the Scout class as opposed to the Rogue class.. 5e does not have a scout class, but you can build the character concept easily simply by creating a shortbow-using rogue with the Outlander background. Each class in 5e is more flexible in this regard.

Smileybastard

2015-09-01, 11:01 PM

Well, the best reason is that if you're playing Pathfinder then you're playing Pathfinder. And that's the best reason ever to switch to 5e :smallbiggrin:

Not helpful at all.

Kane0

2015-09-01, 11:03 PM

Oh, i totally forgot!
Alignment is pretty much an optional rule now.

Smileybastard

2015-09-01, 11:12 PM

Thanks everyone. This is almost all helpful. I can see the appeal, but I don't think it is for me.

Safety Sword

2015-09-01, 11:17 PM

You can basically try it using only online free resources. That's probably the best way to see if you like it.

Malifice

2015-09-02, 12:07 AM

Quicker, better balanced, less broken, requires less system mastery, easier to learn, smoother rules.

tcrudisi

2015-09-02, 12:23 AM

What makes 5e better than Pathfinder? One simple thing: WotC listened to the players when they did the playtest; Pathfinder didn't.

I'm sure that's not what you want to hear, but as someone who playtested both, it makes a huge difference to me.

Of course, that's not saying that 5e is actually good. It's not. It's the 3rd worst system I've ever played. (Hence why my group played it for about a month before moving on.) Pathfinder just happens to be #1 on that list. (I hold grudges, though.)

djreynolds

2015-09-02, 01:20 AM

The difference between 3.5E, pathfinder and 5E is the paperwork. And really that is it. Now please hear me out. In 3.5, which actually is easier to number crunch the original AD&D, you have BAB and feats. I like that, it made you feel as you leveled up and acquired feats that accomplished something and instead of getting an A you got a number score 95 or 96. That's the "real" difference. 5E just gives you an A, I'm not sure if its a 91 or 100, but its in that area.

Also, in Pathfinder, you have to wait to really see you concept evolve and have it planned out early. Its very strict, BAB and rules of 3 when multiclassing. 5E is organic. If you multiclass, you gain and lose, period. Its just opinion about what is more important to the player, but its not a number thing. If you think 3 levels of assassin is all you need and not 4 because of the ASI, and that now progressing in ranger is what you want, that's okay. Its not the best approach, but concept trumps numbers in 5E.

In 3.5 or Pathfinder, you are relegated by class to be this or that. Not sexist but "classist," Only a fighter can be master of the long sword, why is that? That is no longer apparent in 5E.

In 5e if you want your wizard to be Gandalf ( and Gandalf is a wizard, he's not cleric, or sorcerer, he's called a wizard) and fight with a sword and kick it, than go ahead. I maybe a nurse, but it doesn't mean I can't out shoot you either. Why can't I? That's what 5e has done, it has broken down this idea that classes are set in stone. Paladins and barbarians can be of the same alignment, paladins are no longer walking tincans who wear chastity belts underneath. Freedom of concept. You can design almost anything. For me, I see the paladin almost like Jedi now. But maybe you see warlocks as Jedi.

No more silly number crunching. What a waste of time? Everybody optimizing. No more skill points in hide and move silently, its just stealth. And no more crazy numbers. If you want to be a cleric and sneak around, great you can do that. And if you want to be great at it, you can to. You can easily multiclass.

No more silly feat progressions. And yes they are silly. If I want to be a great axe killer, I take great weapon master and its all their. All three feats rolled into one. Much cleaner.

Do I miss weapon master? Yes, I like the fighter class and post threads about it. But as stated before, anyone can and should be awesome with their weapon. Trust me, if some one has a pistol in a holster, they're probably pretty good with it. A wizard walking around with a staff knows how to employ it. A martial class can just attack more per round. No more is a wizard relegated to just sucking with weapons. As I said earlier, I can shoot a rifle well, not "special forces" well but I can employ with skill. I don't have to take 12 levels of fighter to prove that and only be good with one rifle.

You see now, I can conceptualize any idea. If I want to cast spells and wield a great axe, I can. I can take the weapon feat and acquire the ability to use martial weapons. I might lose out on a feat, or I may consider dipping a level, but I don't lose out that much and I don't have worry about BAB. If I want a wizard with a powerful constitution save, I can have that for a cost.

But the real difference is just the grade. A or 91-100. If you can live with an A, 5E is for you. If you gotta know if you had 95 or 96, than pathfinder.

Gwendol

2015-09-02, 02:18 AM

Better balanced classes, a lot less paperwork, and faster gameplay. Most important of all, it's a better game in my opinion in that it is simply more fun.

djreynolds

2015-09-02, 03:04 AM

Better balanced classes, a lot less paperwork, and faster gameplay. Most important of all, it's a better game in my opinion in that it is simply more fun.

And just as realistic. Just enough number crunching. But not obsessive. We'll see how this game compares to NWN's line of PC games. But as far pen and paper goes, yes exactly what you're saying. I still love the original D&D.

Gwendol

2015-09-02, 03:14 AM

I still play older editions too (BECMI, etc).

djreynolds

2015-09-02, 03:21 AM

I still play older editions too (BECMI, etc).

Yeah, they're awesome. And its all green eggs and ham at the end of the day. Play the game and try it out. I believe all the guys and gals on this forum wouldn't be defending 5E if they didn't like it. And I'm sure they like 3.5 and 4. This is just the latest installment of a game that has taken away a lot of money from my kid's college fund. And I say keep it up.

Kane0

2015-09-02, 03:44 AM

We'll see how this game compares to NWN's line of PC games.

I pray for another Baldur's gate / NWN in my generation, hopefully SCL will pave the way.

DanyBallon

2015-09-02, 06:21 AM

My best advice would be to give it a try, and you'll see it you like it or not. And to give it a fair chance, try to keep in mind that it's a completely different game than PF, just as Vampire, RIFT, or Shadowrun are.

Steampunkette

2015-09-02, 06:33 AM

Advantage and Disadvantage as mechanics make the game worlds better than Pathfinder. Because those mechanics shake up the core dice roll from flat 5% chances of each outcome.

That change, by itself, creates a lot of gradation Pathfinder doesn't have, without toppling system balance.

JAL_1138

2015-09-02, 07:06 AM

Thanks. That was my take as well. I also get really annoyed at the healing.

DMG options can revert the healing to something a little closer to traditional "have potions and magic or you're screwed." Slow Natural Healing, Healing Kit Dependency, and Lingering Wounds are all worth looking at in that regard--combining all three can make it potentially more brutal than 3.PF, since enemies will hit more often due to lower ACs across the board.

Louro

2015-09-02, 07:47 AM

I pray for another Baldur's gate / NWN in my generation, hopefully SCL will pave the way.

I would love to play a new DDO like. It was the better online game I ever played.

"A small step for a kobold, a huge leap for koboldkind"

PoeticDwarf

2015-09-02, 09:28 AM

There are less options, but that's why it's more balanced and the gameplay is better, I would say.

dev6500

2015-09-02, 01:07 PM

I've played both pathfinder and 5e although my experience from pathfinder is a little old. For melee classes, I miss the options I used to have(combat maneuvers like disarm and sunder most of all) and I miss the better multiclassing options.

In the balance area, I think saving throws are worse. As the system fleshes out and more spells and special abilities pop up(that attack str, int, cha), the 6 types of saving throws to attack basically means every player has 3 or 4 weaknesses. Which is a lot.

But I do find that the game mostly runs the same except a little simpler, so I do not find that I enjoy 5e less than I did pathfinder and 3.5 in practice.

If your group already runs one system of the other (5e or 3.5/pathfinder) I am not sure you are really missing out on anything by not switching.

KorvinStarmast

2015-09-02, 01:13 PM

The KISS principle. That's what makes 5e a good game to play.

ChelseaNH

2015-09-02, 02:34 PM

5e is clearly a better choice for new players, or people coming back to the game after a long hiatus, or new DMs. Beyond that, it's a matter of taste.

I have a hard time with the HP reset after a long rest on a conceptual level, but it certainly keeps the game moving.

Telwar

2015-09-02, 09:20 PM

It's basically been said already, but 5e is simpler than PF, for good and for ill.

Personally, I'd rather do PF than 5e.

Malifice

2015-09-02, 09:59 PM

I have a hard time with the HP reset after a long rest on a conceptual level, but it certainly keeps the game moving.

It helps if you conceptualize HP as more 'luck and stamina' than as 'meat'.

Atalas

2015-09-02, 11:27 PM

It helps if you conceptualize HP as more 'luck and stamina' than as 'meat'.

I've never played PF but I have played 3.5, and I enjoy 5e more because There's less to think about. I prefer to be able to sit down and think about what my character is gonna do, not solve complex mathematical equations on how they will go about doing it.

And I never felt the sting of the slow HP regen when I did play 3.5 because it ticked all the DMs I had off so they said "screw it, you're healing like you're in a jrpg".

I only miss the wide variety of class options in 5e, but there's enough to play with, especially if you can talk the DM into letting you have, or at least earn, a magic item to help with a concept. Like Boots of Striding and Leaping because you want your fighter to be able to Jump like a Final Fantasy Dragoon.

Strill

2015-09-02, 11:35 PM

I've played both pathfinder and 5e although my experience from pathfinder is a little old. For melee classes, I miss the options I used to have(combat maneuvers like disarm and sunder most of all)These are in the DMG as optional rules.

In the balance area, I think saving throws are worse. As the system fleshes out and more spells and special abilities pop up(that attack str, int, cha), the 6 types of saving throws to attack basically means every player has 3 or 4 weaknesses. Which is a lot.The way the saving throw system works, CON, WIS, and DEX are the primary saves. They're by far the most common, and have the worst effects. CHA, INT, and STR are secondary saves. They're either very rare, or have effects that are mild (like being pushed 10 feet or knocked prone). So in practice, you have one or two major weaknesses, since every class starts with proficiency in a primary save and a secondary save.

djreynolds

2015-09-03, 12:36 AM

5E is just more organic and simpler. But that enables more role-playing and less of people telling me what does or does not work in a world where magic and gods exist. I like 3.5 and pathfinder, but they did get out of hand. But even those systems were created to simplify the original AD&D. The 20 die system is still in effect, but its controlled. No more optimizing and crazy "to hit" and "ac" and spell resistance that works for this but not for that.

Case in point, using NWN2 Battle of the Builds as an example, there should be no way that deep gnome monk completely optimized and "feated" out to have the highest spell resistance, still falls prey to Bigby's Forceful hand or Issacs missle storm. It was just silly. Clerics were way overpowered. Divine power affected all of your classes BAB, not just your cleric levels. It just became a game of optimization. Classes like paladin couldn't smite anything except evil, but a divine champion of neutral alignment could.

But the only way to tell for yourself is just to play. Give it a try, its practically free. An any concept can be made without being OP. That's the key. I want to participate, not be your arrow caddy. Every class now excels in one area, yet can succeed in most other areas with right party mix.

Best if you play it. And then tell me you don't like "Green Eggs and Ham."

SVamp

2015-09-03, 01:44 AM

I would love to play a new DDO like. It was the better online game I ever played.

"A small step for a kobold, a huge leap for koboldkind"

A 5e DDO that keeps the active combat system & collision detection that made it great back then, without the pay to win endless re-roll grind? Wow that sounds amazing, it's too bad I don't believe in Santa Claus :smallwink:

Louro

2015-09-03, 07:33 AM

Grapple. Just grapple.

I didn't reach the grind part. But that game was awesome, fuking awesome... when you actually play it. The first 16-18 levels( in which I played with other noobs ) were awesome. The puzzles, the ambushes, the traps, the labyrinth maps, the "what the heck are we supposed to do here" feeling, the customization options, so many different quests (not just go there-kill that), the people, the kobolds...

It was great.
(I did the Pit with other 2 noobs, all by ourselves. It took us 4 hours. That was EPIC) I'm running the Pit tomorrow as DM muahahahahHAHAHAHAWHAWHAW!

DigoDragon

2015-09-03, 07:36 AM

My experience with 5e is only recent, but so far where it really shines is with PbP games where a streamlined combat is advantageous to keeping the game moving along.

Hawkstar

2015-09-03, 07:41 AM

These are in the DMG as optional rules.
And best of all - if they're in play, anyone can attempt them without screwing themselves over. So many characters in Pathfinder/3.5 have hit a problem where, narratively or tactically it would make sense to try to disarm or grapple someone, but the rules for those leave a 90%+ chance of doing nothing but taking a hard hit for the effort.

dev6500

2015-09-03, 08:23 AM

These are in the DMG as optional rules.

Oh I will check it out there. Hopefully it is well done.

The way the saving throw system works, CON, WIS, and DEX are the primary saves. They're by far the most common, and have the worst effects. CHA, INT, and STR are secondary saves. They're either very rare, or have effects that are mild (like being pushed 10 feet or knocked prone). So in practice, you have one or two major weaknesses, since every class starts with proficiency in a primary save and a secondary save.

In theory, they will be rare but in practice, the more material Wizards releases, the more monsters and special abilities will be created that attack the originally more rare saving throws. Some material I've already read about Psionics will have abilities that target intelligence saving throws. So when psionics is fully fleshed out and released, expect intelligence saving throws to become more prevalent. Having 1 or 2 weak spots is fine but in practice, player's are going to have 4 or 5 major weaknesses(4 non proficient saving throws, possibly AC, and opposed skill checks for abilities like grapple and shove) unless they play a paladin or monk. Even monks will have 4 major weaknesses for the majority of their adventuring career until lvl 14 when they become proficient in all saves.

ImSAMazing

2015-09-03, 08:28 AM

There are less options, but that's why it's more balanced and the gameplay is better, I would say.

Ever played PF? I have, and I find it balanced, it's just that there are so many options... The gameplay however, is different but great on both games.

Person_Man

2015-09-03, 08:32 AM

I've played every edition of D&D and many of the fantasy heartbreaker spin-offs, including Pathfinder. 5E is currently my favorite edition. Here's why:

1) It has most of the fun stuff I enjoy from 2E/3.X, plus some new stuff I enjoy.
2) The math works very well 99% of the time. No more rocket-tag starting at 6th level. No more optimizing your to-hit (or Save's or AC or whatever) so that you auto-succeed on whatever you're optimizing for 100%ish of the time.
3) Most of the overly complicated un-fun rules have been dramatically simplified.

Grimstaff

2015-09-03, 12:02 PM

I don't think anything on a message board can "sell" 5E as well as just sitting down with some buddies and playing it. It's free, so why not?

Doing that certainly sold my PFRPG group on it. We played one session on a lark taking a break from our normal PF campaign. A the end of the session I suggested we try it again sometime, the rest of the players suggested (no, demanded) we stick with 5E from then on. To give an example of how much fun it was - we only realized later that no one had been stopping to search bodies or rooms for treasure!

Really, PFRPG had become a bit of a slog in retrospect, and 5E is just damn fun. I think a lot of us just thought those really exhilirating, imaginative sessions of 1e/2e were just something we had gotten to old to experience anymore, but it turns out it was the tiresome bookkeeping that comes with 3x/PF-style gaming.

charcoalninja

2015-09-03, 10:50 PM

I started D&D with 2nd edition and have been faithfully playing each ever since, but I would not take 5E over Pathfinder.

All said and done, the games run and feel the same. 3.P/4E/5E they're all D&D and will have the D&D feel to them. Pathfinder has more fiddly bits and number crunching for sure, but you only really notice that with inexperienced players. Once players are familiar enough with Pathfinder's ruleset the game flows really well and reminders are only occasionally needed on how rule X or Y works. PF math is mostly done between sessions in the character building minigame rather than mid session.

5E is simple and streamlined yes, but it is also shallow and tactically barren with a few exceptions. 5 E monster design is dull with the VAST majority of monsters existing only to deal HP damage and combats are resolved just as quickly as in PF except now there's just less at work on the table. Less stacking spells, less interesting feats, less class features, etc.

PF is guilty of plain monster design as well but at least it hands out enough spell like abilities or SU effects to keep things interesting. The 5E outsiders are a shadow of their former selves for example.

5E is a fine game, but unless you're finding PF's robustness and complexity to be a hindrence I advise you not to switch as you'll miss the design space to work in.

The caster multiclassing is a thing of beauty though and that's hands down my favourite thing about the system.

Edit: Just for some perspective I play PF with the whole line as well as Mythic, Dreamscarred Press Psionics (so much love) and Path of War swapping out boring feats like skill focus perception on my monsters with some Path of War manuevers so my bruisers are quite a bit more interesting than PF standard.

Edit edit: I'm also a huge 4E fan and pretty annoyed with how much of 4Es innovation and brilliance got cast aside in 5E. Seriously, 5E classes with 4E monsters would have been pretty amazing.

Sigreid

2015-09-03, 11:16 PM

You've probably figured out by now that there isn't a right answer because a game being better or worse than another is subjective. I think you should download the free materials and give it a whirl. That said, from my subjective viewpoint, I like 5e better than Pathfinder/3.5e because it's cleaner and I don't spend nearly as much time having to look something up to make the game work. Tonnes of small modifiers are handled pretty cleanly and fairly with Advantage/Disadvantage. With the healing rules, I can beat my players up pretty good without worrying too much. While there are still some character options that are noticeably better than others, the differences aren't so much that the players feel compelled to look for every little edge or tank the concept they want to run with to have a viable character. I can run a game with as much or as little magic rewards as I want because there aren't any monsters I've seen that absolutely require the party to have magic weapons and armor to defeat them. With the concentration mechanic being 1 spell per caster, neither the wizard nor the cleric can turn the fighter into an invincible killing machine and toss him in a room and hold the door shut until the screaming stops. If someone wants to play a fighter that is more than a knuckle dragging brute, backgrounds allow for that. It always annoyed me in 3.5 that fighters not only had the fewest skills of anyone, they had the worst skill proficiency list to pick from as if a fighter being useful out of combat would break the game.

There are other things, but that should give you an idea.

Grimstaff

2015-09-04, 08:16 AM

Pathfinder has more fiddly bits and number crunching for sure, but you only really notice that with inexperienced players....PF math is mostly done between sessions in the character building minigame rather than mid session...

Lol, its always funny how different people can have such different experiences with the same game. My gaming circle has the exact opposite opinion - the more you experience PFRPG, the more obnoxious the bookkeeping seems. The higher level the campaign gets, the more you're doing math at the table and trying to keep up with a dozen buffs and conditions all at once. We've literally had sessions where the whole session was just one encounter. And I don't mean showdown with the BBEG either, just mundane stuff.

That said, we all love Paizo's production value, campaign setting, and adventures, so we're playing through Rise of the Runelords with 5E. Its just not taking two-three years to play through, which seems to be the average reading the Paizo boards.

Mara

2015-09-04, 10:01 AM

Roderick_BR

2015-09-04, 12:36 PM

My group will play 5E tomorrow, and so far I like what I see, it streamlines rules (without dumbing it down like 4E), and gives you all the necessary basic tools for good storytelling.
The downside is losing the many options PF have. If you do want to detail every part of your game with dozens of specialized and specific options, PF will remain a better option for you.
My group never used those dozens of options at all, so we'll try 5E to see if the simpler game play will work for us.

Hawkstar

2015-09-04, 12:37 PM

The only drawback I can see with D&D 5e is not catfolk race.

charcoalninja

2015-09-04, 12:40 PM

If 5e seems limiting to you then it is because of a lack of imagination.

5e is more a collections of guidelines while Pathfinder is actually a collection of rules. In 5e of you want to squish a swarm by rolling on it with your shield, the DM has you roll something, and you can do that with varying effect. In PF you can try the same thing, but it will do next to nothing without 8 feats and an archetype. So much of pf is a treadmill of optimization that by comparison the average 5e wizard is a more versatile martial combatant.

They are very different games. I want paizo art without having their game.

Hogwash and offensive. People find 5E limiting because the game is shallow compared to something like Pathfinder or 4E. There just flat out aren't as much crunch to bring your concept to life.

And improvised actions are supported equally well by both rulesets in that they have the exact same 1 paragraph of not actually guidelines telling you to make something up. Difference is in PF if I WANT to I can find a discrete bit of rules that empowers me to do something without having to beg for it while in 5E I have no hope if i'm not a caster.

Naanomi

2015-09-04, 12:45 PM

Mara

2015-09-04, 12:53 PM

Hogwash and offensive. People find 5E limiting because the game is shallow compared to something like Pathfinder or 4E. There just flat out aren't as much crunch to bring your concept to life.

And improvised actions are supported equally well by both rulesets in that they have the exact same 1 paragraph of not actually guidelines telling you to make something up. Difference is in PF if I WANT to I can find a discrete bit of rules that empowers me to do something without having to beg for it while in 5E I have no hope if i'm not a caster.

If you can't handle the DM making rulings with the guidelines they have in the PH and DMG then 5e is not for you.

PF will also be a headache because you can't actually run PF RAW. It tries to be a complete rules system and fails.

JoeJ

2015-09-04, 01:03 PM

It's interesting how different perceptions can be. What I like best about 5e is that I feel like I have so many more options than in PF. I'm not talking about build options, however, but options in play.

I don't want to spend hours thinking about how to get the right build to match my character vision, planning out feat chains and which magic items I have to buy in what order. So having a huge number of options in that area is, for me, a negative. I want to spend 10 minutes or so creating a character and not have to think about what I'm going to do at each higher level until I actually get there.

When I'm actually playing, and especially once combat starts, is when I want to have lots of options. I enjoy playing dexterity-based fighters and rogues, and I want to be able to move around the battlefield, attacking when and where I please. If it looks like tripping or grappling would be a good tactical choice, I want to be able to do that. I want to switch between melee and missile weapons as each would be most useful. I want to swing on a rope, buckle swashes, and decide on a moment's notice to cast a spell if I know one. And I really, really don't want to have to pick one of those options when I build my character just to be able to be competent at it.

On top of that, I love the fact that, because of the way skill and tool proficiencies are gained, every character can have significant out of combat utility without sacrificing any of their combat power.

Smileybastard

2015-09-04, 01:17 PM

MrConsideration

2015-09-04, 02:33 PM

One selling point of Pathfinder that I'd argue (as someone currently DMing 5e) is that the fluff is generally better than generic D&D fluff. If you're playing published adventures or in a published setting you'll have more fun with Pathfinder.

If you're homebrewing your setting and adventures 5e is better, because making statblocks and maintaining a balance is much, much quicker and easier, and thanks to Bonded Accuracy you can't go too far wrong with difficulty. 5e is quite swingy though.

Madfellow

2015-09-04, 02:51 PM

The only drawback I can see with D&D 5e is not catfolk race.

Unearthed Arcana statted out the Shifter race.

dev6500

2015-09-04, 03:04 PM

The difference is, if I want to do something (say crawl and stab someone) in 5e, the GM decides how it works. In PF I have to look if any feat or something does that, and if it does exist i cannot do that thing unless I took the feat, or else the feat is meaningless.

That is entirely not true. If you want to crawl and stab someone in 5e, you are left with the gm to decide how it works. IN PF, you can find definite rules for a class or feat that does it or you can still try to have a gm decide how it works.

If you can't handle the DM making rulings with the guidelines they have in the PH and DMG then 5e is not for you.

PF will also be a headache because you can't actually run PF RAW. It tries to be a complete rules system and fails.

Not sure I have seen PF be a headache. Having a more complete rules system means less interuptions in the session. Every time I want to do something that doesn't have a clear rule, the whole thing grinds to a halt until the DM attempts to wing it by improvising a rule. Most of the times I have attempted to wing it as a DM, it hasn't been as effective or well thought out as something out of the rules. Which makes sense, since I just spent 30 seconds trying to figure out what rolls someone needs to make to do something. My flustered 30 seconds in the middle of a session are never going to be as well thought out as the hours a game developer spent.

charcoalninja

2015-09-04, 04:15 PM

That is entirely not true. If you want to crawl and stab someone in 5e, you are left with the gm to decide how it works. IN PF, you can find definite rules for a class or feat that does it or you can still try to have a gm decide how it works.

Not sure I have seen PF be a headache. Having a more complete rules system means less interuptions in the session. Every time I want to do something that doesn't have a clear rule, the whole thing grinds to a halt until the DM attempts to wing it by improvising a rule. Most of the times I have attempted to wing it as a DM, it hasn't been as effective or well thought out as something out of the rules. Which makes sense, since I just spent 30 seconds trying to figure out what rolls someone needs to make to do something. My flustered 30 seconds in the middle of a session are never going to be as well thought out as the hours a game developer spent.

Hell the only edition that actually gave any help for improvising anything at all was 4E. Page 42 of the DMG was incredible and let DMs know what a respectable dage expression should be for say knocking an ogre into a boiling cauldren.

Mara

2015-09-04, 05:19 PM

Hell the only edition that actually gave any help for improvising anything at all was 4E. Page 42 of the DMG was incredible and let DMs know what a respectable dage expression should be for say knocking an ogre into a boiling cauldren.
Cause the 5e DMG doesn't have that at all /s

charcoalninja

2015-09-04, 05:21 PM

Cause the 5e DMG doesn't have that at all /s

It has a table giving a breakdown of DCs and level appropriate damage expressions for improvised actions? Which page? I'll take a closer look. I don't want to seem like I'm slamming 5E, it's a great game of D&D lite, and it runs smooth. But it doesn't have the mechanical robustness I enjoy in my gaming so I wouldn't play it if I had the choice (I'm currently running a 5E campaign with converted 4E monsters. Still fun, I mean it's still D&D after all, but not what I'd prefer to be doing, but I was out voted in favour of trying out new shiny)

Mara

2015-09-04, 05:24 PM

Not sure I have seen PF be a headache. Having a more complete rules system means less interuptions in the session. Every time I want to do something that doesn't have a clear rule, the whole thing grinds to a halt until the DM attempts to wing it by improvising a rule. Most of the times I have attempted to wing it as a DM, it hasn't been as effective or well thought out as something out of the rules. Which makes sense, since I just spent 30 seconds trying to figure out what rolls someone needs to make to do something. My flustered 30 seconds in the middle of a session are never going to be as well thought out as the hours a game developer spent.
Pick a DC. Pick a skill. Pick a level of difficulty did the character.

Done.

Also read the DMG. All of it. Have a good time.

Mara

2015-09-04, 05:27 PM

It has a table giving a breakdown of DCs and level appropriate damage expressions for improvised actions?
Yes. Page 249

dev6500

2015-09-04, 05:53 PM

Pick a DC. Pick a skill. Pick a level of difficulty did the character.

Done.

Also read the DMG. All of it. Have a good time.

Wow, I think I need less of your condescension.

If single skill checks is your solution, well call me less impressed. Also, the skill dc and skill selection isn't really the end of the decision making process. Depending on the combat action the player wants to take, you also need to decide on what meaningful effect occurs on a successful attempt and what meaning consequences there are for failure.

This is why I am of the opinion that having real rules for things is great and me cooking up a skill check dc and some random effect on the spot is less great.

MadBear

2015-09-04, 06:21 PM

This is why I am of the opinion that having real rules for things is great and me cooking up a skill check dc and some random effect on the spot is less great.

This is where PF loses me. In 5e, my group can quickly wing it, and move on. In PF, there was a plethora a different rules, in different books, with feats that referenced those rules in other books, with errata that changed those rules. I mean I get it, different strokes for different folks and all that business, but I hated the fact that you needed a literal flow chart to grapple someone in PF, and even then it got muddled.

(on the other hand, my MMA fighter who could trip/grapple/reposition/stun/blind/sicken and hit you 2-4 times in a single turn was amazing. Granted he got 1 turn off, before the GM decided it was far to complex to keep using, since my turns took forever, but it was still fun).

Afgncaap5

2015-09-04, 06:41 PM

Okay, I just played 5th Edition last night for the first time, so I don't know if I'll be as helpful as someone who's really knowledgeable about the system, but, well... I actually felt like I was a character in a fantasy story instead of being the player of a game.

I know, rationally, that Pathfinder should be just as capable of encouraging roleplay and characterization as any other system... it's all just roleplay after all, you don't need dice for that... but for some reason, Pathfinder's never made me feel that way. I've always sorta felt that Pathfinder ignored changed some rules from 3.5 for the sake of expedience rather than flavor (I'm still sore about Bardic Knowledge being relegated to just a knowledge booster... though to be fair, 3.5 was doing that to itself near the end of its run), but in 5th edition I get the sense of rules changed to increase expediency *and* flavor, rather than one or the other. Pathfinder, from what I've played, usually relegates that to flavor text or, if you're lucky, unusual mechanical things in adventure paths.

So... honestly, I think that Pathfinder is the better game if you want a crunchy game, but I personally think I'm going to have a lot more fun in 5th Edition from now on.

Or maybe I just had a really great DM and I'll feel differently after my second game. Who knows? Either way, have fun.

Baptor

2015-09-04, 07:01 PM

(I'm currently running a 5E campaign with converted 4E monsters.

I say good fellow, might you share your methods for converting 4e monsters to 5e? I would really, really like that. :) :) :)

YossarianLives

2015-09-04, 07:17 PM

What I don't understand is, why do people seem to think that coming up with an effect on the spot is difficult?

Last night I ran an OD&D one-shot. The party was delving in a goblin lair and at several points in the game the players wanted to perform actions not covered in the rules. Like throwing a bucket of soapy water into a goblin's eyes. I told the players to roll a d20 and when he rolled quite high I declared that the goblin had been hit by the water full-on and was taking a -1 to hit because he wasn't able to see properly. Later on a player wanted to push a goblin into a cauldron of boiling soup. Once again I had her roll a die and when she rolled a natural 20 I ruled that the goblin toppled in the soup and rolled for damage.

I don't see why people think this is so hard.

charcoalninja

2015-09-04, 08:46 PM

I say good fellow, might you share your methods for converting 4e monsters to 5e? I would really, really like that. :) :) :)

It's a rough working model ATM, we're only two sessions into the starter set (with this group) so I haven't seen how it fully scales up, but that'll be easy enough to deal with when the time comes.

Covert 4e monsters to 5e:
- Bonuses to hit are cut straight in half across the board round up. (This puts Demogorgon from a +39 to hit to a +19 to hit which is in line with 5E Orcus). And say a Barghest (level 4 Brute +7 vs. AC to +4 to hit vs. AC)

- -3 ACs for Heroic Tier, - 5 for Paragon, -7 for Epic. Remove 1/2 level from AC and Ability score mods for all levels. So Demogorgon's AC goes from 48 to: 48 - 7 = 41 - 17 = 24 which is pretty spot on for a top CR monster. 4E demogorgon is CR 33 after all.

- Add 1/2 the monster's level to their damage for the round (minimum 1) This helps boost 4E monsters like dragons who have big AOE attacks that don't mirror the damage expressions of 5E's big blasts. This could also be because I'm working from Monster Manual 1 & 2 as primary sources. Rather than MM 3's improved damage expressions. So if you're using the new monsters you may not need to change the damage.

- Use Bloodied Value for HP for monsters levels 1-3. The HP in 5e does level out with 4e's standards so you won't need to tweak HP too much, but at level 1 a 34 hp goblin is going to shock the hell out of people. Elites and Solos, up to you if you change the HP. I personally wouldn't because it makes those fights memorable in how tough they are (I upgraded all my Demons and Devils to Elites or Solos for example).

- Convert the usual +1/2 level to skills to 1/3 level round down, Minimum 2. This is your Prof bonus now. So a level 30 monster has a +10 prof bonus, and a level 10 has a +3. Rounding up keeps them on par up until about level 20, where they get a +7 rather than the PCs +6, so pick your poison. I round down for simplicity, a +1 difference isn't a big deal anyway.

- All save ends powers gain DC 8+prof+mod save based on effect (use your judgement on which ability score makes sense for the save) Remember that you scaled down their ability modifiers earlier!

- Solos gain Legendary Actions, one of which is to recharge an ability. They gain legendary resistances as well.

- Add Innate Spellcasting to taste as needed.

- Saving Throws: give proficiency in 1 save if its a soldier, 2 saves if its an elite, and in 3 if its a Solo.

- Use the same exp values for rewards and encounter budgeting. I'm pretty sure this works out, but I'm not sure. I've been leveling the PCs as its naratively appropriate for years now so I'm disconnected with how exp all pans out comparatively.

What this does is it edits out the 4e math scaling to bring them in line (roughly) with what 5E monsters have while still keeping all of the fun powers and tactical problems 4E monster design added to the game. That should give you all the tools you need to take any 4e dude and make them work in 5E. I do this mainly so I can keep living the glory days while my PCs get to keep using their new shiney. Everybody wins!

E’Tallitnics

2015-09-04, 09:08 PM

Thanks everyone. This is almost all helpful. I can see the appeal, but I don't think it is for me.

Considering the feedback you've gained I'm curious as to why you feel it's not for you?

Also curious if you've played 5e, and if so to what level?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Takewo

2015-09-05, 02:10 AM

What I don't understand is, why do people seem to think that coming up with an effect on the spot is difficult?

I don't think people find it hard, but rather arbitrary, as it is the game master who decides what kind of roll and DC it should be.

(NOTE: I am not saying that I agree with the opinion stated above, I merely said that I believe it is the dominant opinion on the issue.)

JAL_1138

2015-09-05, 08:47 AM

Charcoalninja, I think your ACs will end up a bit on the high side with that method. An Ancient Gold Dragon's AC is 22, iirc.

charcoalninja

2015-09-05, 09:30 AM

Charcoalninja, I think your ACs will end up a bit on the high side with that method. An Ancient Gold Dragon's AC is 22, iirc.

Good to know. Can change it to -3 heroic tier, -5 Paragon tier, - 7 epic Tier. So that would give us:
Demogorgon: AC 48 - 7 = 41 - 17 = 24.

I like it!

I'll edit my post to reflect the new formula.

rgrekejin

2015-09-05, 10:45 AM

All said and done, the games run and feel the same. 3.P/4E/5E they're all D&D and will have the D&D feel to them. Pathfinder has more fiddly bits and number crunching for sure, but you only really notice that with inexperienced players. Once players are familiar enough with Pathfinder's ruleset the game flows really well and reminders are only occasionally needed on how rule X or Y works. PF math is mostly done between sessions in the character building minigame rather than mid session.

5E is simple and streamlined yes, but it is also shallow and tactically barren with a few exceptions. 5 E monster design is dull with the VAST majority of monsters existing only to deal HP damage and combats are resolved just as quickly as in PF except now there's just less at work on the table. Less stacking spells, less interesting feats, less class features, etc.

PF is guilty of plain monster design as well but at least it hands out enough spell like abilities or SU effects to keep things interesting. The 5E outsiders are a shadow of their former selves for example.

5E is a fine game, but unless you're finding PF's robustness and complexity to be a hindrence I advise you not to switch as you'll miss the design space to work in.

This more or less reflects my experience with 5e and 3.5e. Presently, I have two different D&D groups - one which plays 3.5e and one which plays 5e. The one which plays 3.5e is made up of myself and a bunch of old college friends - the core members have been playing together for over a decade. We're all intimately familiar with the system, and running the math is no big deal for us. It doesn't slow down combat at all. And if we ever switched to another system, we'd all miss the ability that 3.5 has for realizing very specific and weird character designs. Now, partly that ability is just a manifestation of the fact that 3.5 has so many more splatbooks available. But part of it is the fact that the system allows for more inherent customization than 5e does, with the greater availability of feats, the prevalence of magic items, the fact that prestige classes are a thing, and the fact that multiclassing isn't quite so much of a poison pill.

The group that plays 5e has a very different dynamic. It's mostly made up of army buddies who are fairly new to D&D. We take everything a lot less seriously, put little effort into character optimization, and get as much enjoyment out of making fun of each other and making innuendo-laden jokes at the expense of NPCs as we do out of actually playing the game. We used to play 4e, but switched over to 5e after getting increasingly frustrated with how 4e combat tends to bog down at higher levels. For this group, the relative simplicity of 5e was one of its big draws. So what if you can't make a flying fighter-barbarian raptoran charger who fights with a heavy spiked chain, or a tibbit hellfire warlock who switches forms between housecat and unstoppable engine of destruction on a whim? No one in this group wants that level of customization. We just want to go play a standard fantasy campaign with standard fantasy characters and make a lot of dirty jokes. For this, 5e is (mostly) perfect.

If 5e seems limiting to you then it is because of a lack of imagination.

5e is more a collections of guidelines while Pathfinder is actually a collection of rules.

It seems to me that the argument you're making is that 5e is superior because it requires you to make up the rules as you're going along more often than other versions. Considering that I'm paying good money for a system of rules in which to play a game, this hardly seems to me like a good selling point. If I wanted to make up my own rules all the time, then I wouldn't need the 5e framework at all.

Beyond that, there's also the "balance" argument. There's a reason that homebrew is generally looked down on as less acceptable for general use than official material. It's that most people are tremendously bad at balancing things they just make up off the cuff.

Submortimer

2015-09-05, 11:08 AM

It seems to me that the argument you're making is that 5e is superior because it requires you to make up the rules as you're going along more often than other versions. Considering that I'm paying good money for a system of rules in which to play a game, this hardly seems to me like a good selling point. If I wanted to make up my own rules all the time, then I wouldn't need the 5e framework at all.

Beyond that, there's also the "balance" argument. There's a reason that homebrew is generally looked down on as less acceptable for general use than official material. It's that most people are tremendously bad at balancing things they just make up off the cuff.

I'll give it to you that most home brew projects generally feed the power creep, not subdue it; that said, one of the things I've learned to love about 5e is that designing balanced homebrew is generally much easier than in previous editions.

Naanomi

2015-09-05, 11:22 AM

Setting mechanics up for things is inherently limiting to some degree. As soon as a feat exists that says 'you don't take penalties to fighting while hanging from then ceiling' then now no matter what else you do you will be taking those penalties if you try some ceiling fighting. It only gets worse if that feat is clearly weaker than other options or had specific prerequisites...

Now only certain (probably unoptimal) build will fight while hanging from the ceiling whereas if the feat didn't exist it could be creatively attempted

Mara

2015-09-05, 11:56 AM

It seems to me that the argument you're making is that 5e is superior because it requires you to make up the rules as you're going along more often than other versions. Considering that I'm paying good money for a system of rules in which to play a game, this hardly seems to me like a good selling point. If I wanted to make up my own rules all the time, then I wouldn't need the 5e framework at all.

Beyond that, there's also the "balance" argument. There's a reason that homebrew is generally looked down on as less acceptable for general use than official material. It's that most people are tremendously bad at balancing things they just make up off the cuff.

No that statement was pointing out both the strength and flaw of 5e. It's not a better rules system than Pathfinder because it cheats. 5e is more a collection of guidelines. It's simpler to run but you can do a lot more in 5e than you ever could on PF or 3.5. And by do, I mean actual action not random niche builds. Hundreds of different 3.5 fighters are accomplished by one standard champion fighter. Hundreds more 3.5 builds with a handful of champion fighters with feats of multiclassing.

But for all this good. 5e is not a perfect rules system do to a severe lack of explicit rules.

charcoalninja

2015-09-05, 12:43 PM

No that statement was pointing out both the strength and flaw of 5e. It's not a better rules system than Pathfinder because it cheats. 5e is more a collection of guidelines. It's simpler to run but you can do a lot more in 5e than you ever could on PF or 3.5. And by do, I mean actual action not random niche builds. Hundreds of different 3.5 fighters are accomplished by one standard champion fighter. Hundreds more 3.5 builds with a handful of champion fighters with feats of multiclassing.

But for all this good. 5e is not a perfect rules system do to a severe lack of explicit rules.

If hundreds of 3.5 fighters are done by the Champion then each 3.5 build was itself hundreds of other fighters. You're literally saying that a Fighter that has nothing to it (the champion) is somehow magically expressing hundreds of fighter concepts. That's ridiculous. None of my Fighters can be replicated by a featless champion and can barely be emulated with a Feat stuffed Battlemaster because I like my fighters to be able to have abilities they can call on such as spending their reaction to deflect an attack, striking in vital areas to impede their defences or shatter their armour, hold multiple foes at bay through their expertise, charge across the battlefield to lay a group of enemies low. In 5e I'm told that every time someone tries to attack my character or I want to do more than say "I attacK" I should stop the game for another session of beg the DM to let me do something cool or I'm expected to be happy with 4 cool things a short rest on my cool things combat expert.

Course my fighters were 4e Fighters or ToB / PoW characters so I expect and prefer a robust combat simulator... like casting is... not the abstract nothing that is baseline Champion.

Battlemaster would be great if he didn't run out of gas in a round in a half, because the Battlemaster CAN do the things I mentioned, just like... twice.

5e has a lot of great freedom, but for me, and others like me, it would have been really really nice to have some more melee oomph spelled out.

Mara

2015-09-05, 01:49 PM

If hundreds of 3.5 fighters are done by the Champion then each 3.5 build was itself hundreds of other fighters. You're literally saying that a Fighter that has nothing to it (the champion) is somehow magically expressing hundreds of fighter concepts. That's ridiculous. None of my Fighters can be replicated by a featless champion and can barely be emulated with a Feat stuffed Battlemaster because I like my fighters to be able to have abilities they can call on such as spending their reaction to deflect an attack, striking in vital areas to impede their defences or shatter their armour, hold multiple foes at bay through their expertise, charge across the battlefield to lay a group of enemies low. In 5e I'm told that every time someone tries to attack my character or I want to do more than say "I attacK" I should stop the game for another session of beg the DM to let me do something cool or I'm expected to be happy with 4 cool things a short rest on my cool things combat expert.

Course my fighters were 4e Fighters or ToB / PoW characters so I expect and prefer a robust combat simulator... like casting is... not the abstract nothing that is baseline Champion.

Battlemaster would be great if he didn't run out of gas in a round in a half, because the Battlemaster CAN do the things I mentioned, just like... twice.

5e has a lot of great freedom, but for me, and others like me, it would have been really really nice to have some more melee oomph spelled out.
So much of 5e depends on DM rulings. It has good guidelines for it, but if you can't handle that then it is pointless to discuss further about a game with someone who ignores 90% of the mechanics for philosophical reasons.

Nifft

2015-09-05, 02:22 PM

I ran a lot of 3.5e.

3.5e was great fun, but it was a LOT of work to run.

The way that I got that work down to practical levels was to only design a few key opponents, and wing the rest: most didn't have full spell lists, for example, and their spell DCs were based on a ballpark level-appropriate DC rather than as the rules would dictate for their special circumstances or feats (which I usually didn't bother doing fully either).

5e also requires winging it at times -- but no more than 3.5e did, in my (personal and limited) experience, and 5e has a lot more support and advice for when and how to wing it.

From what I can tell, Pathfinder is 3.5e but with even more complexity -- more small incremental bonuses, more moving parts and dangling fiddly bits, more interactions between all the different subsystems.

In contrast, 5e is streamlined and simplified. It's difficult to build a bad character (i.e. very new-player friendly), and easy to see when a build decision is a mistake.

3.5e had long lists of tactical +X modifiers: high ground, flanking, etc. That means slowing down combat when a player tries to figure out how to maximize his chance at hitting each round.

5e has Advantage, instead: you just need one way to get it, and then you're done. All tactical bonuses are equally good and they don't stack, which is GREAT for running a fast combat, since the tactically-minded players don't get any benefit from exhaustively searching for every possible bonus.

5e is a really good game. It's not just more of the good and bad which was 3.5e: it's a game that learned from 3.5e's mistakes, and corrected at least some of them.

LordBlades

2015-09-05, 02:37 PM

5e is a really good game. It's not just more of the good and bad which was 3.5e: it's a game that learned from 3.5e's mistakes, and corrected at least some of them.

The reverse is also true unfortunately, 5e has also got rid of at least some of the good points of 3.5.

Of course, what's 'good' and 'bad' will vary from group to group.

Louro

2015-09-05, 03:30 PM

Having a more complete rules system means less interuptions in the session.
3.5 grapple anyone?

We have played 3.5 for years and I don't recall a single night in which we hadn't to check stuff on our 3 players guide, 2 master guides and spell compendium.
After 2 months on 5ed we barely check the book. And when we need a "new rule" it comes in a matter of seconds, because everything is simple and obvious.

Nifft

2015-09-05, 04:33 PM

The reverse is also true unfortunately, 5e has also got rid of at least some of the good points of 3.5.

Which ones do you mean?

I know that 5e dropped some of the good points of 4e.

(...though saying 4e had any good points at all can be an unpopular opinion...)

LordBlades

2015-09-05, 04:34 PM

3.5 grapple anyone?

We have played 3.5 for years and I don't recall a single night in which we hadn't to check stuff on our 3 players guide, 2 master guides and spell compendium.
After 2 months on 5ed we barely check the book. And when we need a "new rule" it comes in a matter of seconds, because everything is simple and obvious.

I'll never understand why so many people bring up grapple as that hard to understand. Not like it's rocket science or but regardless...

In my usual gaming group almist everyone has a good memory for rules (and reads the books cover yo cover several times). After playing a system for a bit it's very rare to find a rule nobody at the table knows.

Making a new rule however....almost everyone has a strong personality and DM experience, so we usually all want to say our piece about the issue at hand before the DM makes a ruling.

charcoalninja

2015-09-05, 05:49 PM

So much of 5e depends on DM rulings. It has good guidelines for it, but if you can't handle that then it is pointless to discuss further about a game with someone who ignores 90% of the mechanics for philosophical reasons.

DM makes things up on the fly isn't a mechanic. And even if it WAS it isn't one unique to 5E.

But yes, I dislike systems where my character's entire efficacy at any given task is defined not by me the player but by the DM. It can be liberating sure, but it is universally inconsistant as you depend on your DM for remembering how hard it was he made stunning a bad guy last session. Not to mention it results in players having 0 point of reference for their capabilities and therefore removes any strategy from the gameplay.

It is a legitimate concern and downside to 5E that the OP should be aware of. If he's used to depending on his character's capabilities to make a plan and take action he won't see much of that in 5E unless he's playing a spellcaster and even then, the skill system will leave him hanging similarly at the DMs whim.

Hawkstar

2015-09-05, 06:11 PM

Eh.... while a 5e fighter may not be able to do quite as much as a 3e fighter, there's a hell of a lot less it can't do...

Nifft

2015-09-05, 07:02 PM

DM makes things up on the fly isn't a mechanic. And even if it WAS it isn't one unique to 5E.

But yes, I dislike systems where my character's entire efficacy at any given task is defined not by me the player but by the DM. It can be liberating sure, but it is universally inconsistant as you depend on your DM for remembering how hard it was he made stunning a bad guy last session. Not to mention it results in players having 0 point of reference for their capabilities and therefore removes any strategy from the gameplay.

It is a legitimate concern and downside to 5E that the OP should be aware of. If he's used to depending on his character's capabilities to make a plan and take action he won't see much of that in 5E unless he's playing a spellcaster and even then, the skill system will leave him hanging similarly at the DMs whim.
I'm not sure that's valid.

Bounded accuracy and bounded skills means the lock on a door at level 2 might be the same DC as the lock on a door at level 15, even though the PC's skill has increased.

It's not like 3.x where you get Greater Adamantine Planar Epic Locks on every door as soon as the players hit a certain level.

So, while it's technically true that you need to trust the DM, that's not a new thing -- every edition requires a trustworthy DM. The big difference with 5e is that the world can remain consistent, even as the PCs level up. An army of "realistic" mundane soldiers remains a potent political force, even as the PCs far exceed the capabilities of any individual soldier.

5e is really good for games where the world exists independently of the plot.

JAL_1138

2015-09-05, 07:28 PM

it's been mentioned but DMing 5e is simple and prep can be focused on scenarios and description rather than trying to sort out rules and monster stats. And while the encounter guidelines are generally a little too easy for an old-schooler used to beinging a stack of spare characters--I virtually never use anything under "hard" and frequently use "deadly" (or harder, which is not given guidelines) and I still haven't had many PC deaths--they're still good and quick. Monsters are simple to run, relatively simple to build, and work well.

It has less of a treadmill feel, as well. Little need to scrounge for every plus, no need to keep getting every scrap of gold you can and spending it on the perfect item for your level to get the necessary bonus to keep up with the enemy's AC and saves, or the best magic armor for your level to keep up with the enemy's to-hit, and trading in your old gear to do it, videogame-style. A +1 sword or casting-focus can last a character's whole career and actually make them better the whole time, not just keep them on pace with the math for a few levels and then fall behind.

pwykersotz

2015-09-05, 08:22 PM

In addition to what others have mentioned, I'm a huge fan of actions not being locked out by feats and special abilities. You don't get told "sorry, you can't do that withou X feat" nearly as much. 5e embraces a much more improv friendly environment, to contrast with 3.5's heavily codified lego bricks. It's just a different experience, I love them both.

Louro

2015-09-05, 09:39 PM

I'll never understand why so many people bring up grapple as that hard to understand. Not like it's rocket science or but regardless.

Making a new rule however....almost everyone has a strong personality and DM experience, so we usually all want to say our piece about the issue at hand before the DM makes a ruling.
Yeah, same here. They all say something and I approve the option with more support. Seconds.

Http://dadosydibujos.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Presas-how-do-they-work.png

http://karzoug.info/srd/combat/images/grapple_flow_chart-02.png

charcoalninja

2015-09-06, 07:45 AM

I DO want to say that though I've been critical of some aspects of 5E, it's been in reference to other editions of D&D that do certain things that better suit my playstyle. 5E is still ultimately D&D, and therefore is still a wonderful game. I am runnning a 5 E campaign and it's fun. The PCs are quite thrilled with their characters, and while backgrounds were detailed in previous editions (4E especially with its background and theme systems) it was never laid out so intuitively or made as integral an aspect to character creation as it has been in 5E and my players love that. The casting system is nice, and struck a great balance between preserving D&Ds iconic magical flavour (something 4E failed to do) while constraining the balance better than in 2E or 3E before it and that's well done.

Multiclassing is a refreshing take, with built in trade offs for the increase in versatility but allowing both martial and caster abilities to stack wonderfully open up character concepts.

For 4E grognards like myself the warlock has been wonderfully ported with the iconic infernal pact delightfully intact, with the added bonus of Hurl through hell. Additionally, the Paladin class is fantastic. A bladelock with a dip in Paladin, using the optional Marking rules gives a great amount of options for those wanting a more tactical combat game.

What has struck me most this time around though, and stands out in stark contrast to 4E, is HOW WotC has approached the product. With 5E every step of development to each release of a new adventure has been a group of developers that love their product, are excited about it, and want you to enjoy it too. Whereas 4E was a bunchbof developers that love their product and insulted you at every turn for enjoying yours. 5E has been an extremely welcoming experience and by all accounts it's bringing success and rallying old and new around the brand once again.

So while I am hard on 5E for what it's missing, there is a lot to love here, and it IS still a great edition of D&D. It just isn't a complex one really.

Hawkstar

2015-09-06, 02:23 PM

-spreadsheet snip-... are those supposed to demonstrate that the PF Grappling rules aren't a mess to deal with at the table? (And they're worse in 3e).

The difference to me, between PF and 5e is:
DM: The guy breaks off and starts running away.
Newish Player: I want to chase after him and tackle him to the ground!

In 3.P:
DM: Do you have Improved Grapple?
Newish Player: Um.... no?
DM: Okay *Rolls* - You jump on his sword. Take 13 damage, and a -13 to your roll to tackle him
Newish Player: WTF?!

(More experienced players know that trying to do anything you're not specifically built for is suicide)

In 5e:
DM: Alright... Make an Athletics check.

georgie_leech

2015-09-06, 03:10 PM

3.P gives you a number of resources that give you defined actions that function regardless of your DM's opinion of improvised actions. The cost of this approach is that if you haven't spent the resources or have the ability, you either suck at it or in some cases can't even attempt it. For better or worse, 5e generally assumes that the DM will be on board with allowing improvised actions, and so doesn't define many of the actions that 3.P veterans sometimes take for granted. In other words, if you prefer your capabilities spelled out by the rules so there's no doubt as to what your character can do, 5e isn't for you. On the other hand, if you don’t mind giving up some rigor for greater flexibility, 5e is worth a try.

Princess

2015-09-06, 03:52 PM

For me, the biggest reason to stick with Pathfinder over 5e is if someone in the group wants something specifically that is present in the former but absent in the latter in a fundamental character-defining sort of way, like the Summoner Class - there's just no way to get yourself a minion in 5e Core without homebrew (Which is why I specifically made a homebrew spell called Summon Minion, but not all GMs like homebrew). If there isn't a specific reason you need Pathfinder, 5e is easier and faster, more forgiving, and can be learned in its entirety in the time it would take to prepare a few custom encounters with the Pathfinder rules.

The only other major reason I can think of for Pathfinder over 5e is if you have optimization oriented, mechanical chess master type players who thrive on complex systems. They might not be satisfied with the relative simplicity of 5e, but they also might appreciate that it doesn't have as many goofy options to make a character too niche to fit most campaigns.

By every metric I can think of aside from "getting exactly the right character" and "I love math battles" I'd much rather use 5e. In general, whenever I play 3.5 or Pathfinder these days, I specifically choose a character that's impossible in 5e, because in any other instance I'm disappointed that the 3.5 version of a character is more complicated and less versatile than their 5e version. My 5e Rogue doesn't have to worry about skill points, my 5e sorcerer can cast 2nd level spells at level 3 like a real caster should, and my 5e barbarian doesn't have to wear a shirt to maintain a respecable AC. Why would I accept anything less?

Mara

2015-09-06, 03:58 PM

I can't think of a single class in 5e where I prefer the 3.5 or the PF version.

Summoning in PF is pretty awesome, but druids make for great summoners in 5e, wizards have to wait a tad too long for it to be the entirety of what your character does like it can in pf.

Louro

2015-09-06, 05:48 PM

... are those supposed to demonstrate that the PF Grappling rules aren't a mess to deal with at the table? (And they're worse in 3e).

The difference to me, between PF and 5e is:
DM: The guy breaks off and starts running away.
Newish Player: I want to chase after him and tackle him to the ground!

In 3.P:
DM: Do you have Improved Grapple?
Newish Player: Um.... no?
DM: Okay *Rolls* - You jump on his sword. Take 13 damage, and a -13 to your roll to tackle him
Newish Player: WTF?!

(More experienced players know that trying to do anything you're not specifically built for is suicide)

In 5e:
DM: Alright... Make an Athletics check.

Someone said the more rules a system has the faster it is. The grapple flowchart just shows how wrong is that.

And it's not only the book researching (nobody dares to attempt a grapple at my 3.5 table) but also the amount of options 5e gives you without the need of specialization as you said. And all of this at a really fast pace.

If anyone still prefers 3.P over 5e after all the points said here... Maths and optimization VS story and roleplay.

Elderand

2015-09-06, 07:00 PM

If anyone still prefers 3.P over 5e after all the points said here... Maths and optimization VS story and roleplay.

That's complete bantha poodoo the amount of story and roleplay in any game is utterly independent from the crunchiness of the rules and frankly has nothing to do at all with the system in general and everything to do with the sort of people at the table.

3.p is rules heavy (but not the heaviest) and 5e is rule light (but not the lightest) both can have as much or as little roleplay and story in the game as any table like.

Nifft

2015-09-06, 07:13 PM

That's complete bantha poodoo the amount of story and roleplay in any game is utterly independent from the crunchiness of the rules and frankly has nothing to do at all with the system in general and everything to do with the sort of people at the table.

Hmm. Not sure that's accurate.

Time is a limited resource.

If the crunch takes more time, then something else must get less time.

Every minute spent tracing the lines on the grapple flowchart is a minute not spent on something else.

Kane0

2015-09-06, 07:26 PM

Also one thing I missed and only a few people have touched on is opportunity attacks.

You no longer cop a sword to the face for daring to cast burning hands or shocking grasp right next to your enemy, nor do you let in free swings when you attempt to circle around your foe for a better angle. The one and only thing that provokes a free attack against you by default is running away from his threatened space with a weapon without first using your action to do so safely.

Feats and abilities can change that, but it makes for a much more free flowing combat when your beatsticks aren't restricted to their current target, the glass cannons can actually weave through a melee and the squishies can get away or cast emergency spells while threatened with bodily harm.

And making an opportunity attack uses your one and only reaction for the round, which means you can't then retaliate with things like hellish rebuke or save yourself with uncanny dodge or feather fall. This contributes to fast and fluid gameplay in combat while simultaneously not giving up too much depth and decision making.

Louro

2015-09-06, 07:39 PM

Hmm. Not sure that's accurate.

Time is a limited resource.

If the crunch takes more time, then something else must get less time.

Every minute spent tracing the lines on the grapple flowchart is a minute not spent on something else.
In addition to this, now players (who are not feat dependant) can attempt to do whatever they can which contributes to the feeling that they are playing a "real person" and not a RPG toon with X buttons to press.

Everything is way more easy to plan for the DM, players can focus on story rather than on character planning. Balance is not a problem anymore. Newbies can play along ( and yet effectively) with pros. And so on, so on...

charcoalninja

2015-09-06, 07:46 PM

Having the mechanics to support what you're talking about is another avenue to enhanced roleplay.

In the tackle example of PF you didn't frame it thusly as it should be.

DM: Okay the swordsman is running for it.
P1: I'll run after him and tackle him!
DM: You do know he's armed with a longsword, so you're trying to football tackle a skilled solier with a sword right?
P1: Don't care doing it!
DM: Okay, you provoke an AOO, he hits, you take 13 damage as he turns around and gives you a downward chop across the sholder. You have a -13 to your tackle attempt.
P1: WTF! ouch!
DM: Yeah charging people with swords is a bad idea.
P2: my monk charge tackles him, I have improved grapple, CMB 28.
DM: You slip inside his guard expertly and drop him to the ground.
P1: Damn ninjas!

That rule is to facilitate the RP reality that unarmed attacking someone armed will ruin your day. Which again feeds its own RP.

Louro

2015-09-06, 08:01 PM

Ehem...
Tackling someone is not roleplaying.
Jumping trough a window to grab a chandelier, swing yourself to reach the big curtain and descend using a dagger while you tear the curtain to smooth your fall is roleplaying.

In 5e you just roll a couple of athletics or acrobatics rolls.
In 3.P you need the acurate jumper feat, the chandelier master feat, and the improved rappel feat.

Don't mess reality with this.

rgrekejin

2015-09-06, 08:06 PM

Hmm. Not sure that's accurate.

Time is a limited resource.

If the crunch takes more time, then something else must get less time.

Every minute spent tracing the lines on the grapple flowchart is a minute not spent on something else.

That's not necessarily true. If the group is in combat and player x is planning to grapple npc y, they could easily be looking up the relevant rules (assuming that they don't know them) while they're waiting for players a, b, and c to take their turns. It's pretty easy for one player to look something up during another player's turn if they think they're going to need it.

But more broadly, I still don't buy the argument that crunch is always bad and is detracting from more worthwhile pursuits. I mean, if you take this train of reasoning to its logical conclusion and strip out all the crunch in favor of roleplaying, you're all just sitting in a room saying the things you do:

"My knight attacks the dragon with his sword!"
"It bounces harmlessly off the scales!"
"Nuh-uh! It's a special, magic sword, so it can piece the scales!"
"But the dragon has magic scales that repel magic swords, so it still doesn't work!"
etc, etc, etc.

The sole reason crunch exists is to constrain player action, so that everyone *isn't* just making up the rules as they go along. How much crunch is right for you depends entirely on your group dynamics and the type of story you're telling. For instance, I'd feel damned silly trying to game Lovecraftian Horrors in any system where bounded accuracy is a thing. Treating crunch like it's a sort of necessary evil that should always be ruthlessly excised whenever possible is precisely the wrong attitude to have towards it. Your group should use a system that's exactly as crunchy as you're comfortable with to convey the level of realism you want, and no less. To borrow a videogame analogy, some people like Call of Duty, and some people like Arma III. The fact that one has more fiddly bits doesn't make it better or worse, it just appeals to a different set of tastes.

Louro

2015-09-06, 08:14 PM

That's not necessarily true. If the group is in combat and player x is planning to grapple npc y, they could easily be looking up the relevant rules (assuming that they don't know them) while they're waiting for players a, b, and c to take their turns. It's pretty easy for one player to look something up during another player's turn if they think they're going to need it.

WRONG!
We don't need the book anymore.

WE
JUST
PLAY!

Edit: do you know the 3.5 grapple rules? I've okayed for like 5 years and still don't understand how it works... Mostly because at some point we decided that grapple does not exist. It was ****ing ridiculous, 3 people reading the manual to solve a single action. Gangbang grapple!

Nifft

2015-09-06, 08:17 PM

But more broadly, I still don't buy the argument that crunch is always bad and is detracting from more worthwhile pursuits.

Crunch isn't bad.

Crunch which is needlessly time-consuming is bad.

Efficient and unambiguous crunch is a fantastic tool for aiding role-play and moving the story forward.

JNAProductions

2015-09-06, 08:20 PM

Simple RAW Thread for 3.5: 30. Really? 30? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?418961-Simple-RAW-Thread-for-3-5-30-Really-30)

Efficient and unambiguous is not what 3.P has to offer.

rgrekejin

2015-09-06, 08:47 PM

Crunch isn't bad.

Crunch which is needlessly time-consuming is bad.

Efficient and unambiguous crunch is a fantastic tool for aiding role-play and moving the story forward.

"Efficient and unambiguous" is not how I would describe a system whose core mechanic seems to be "Eh, have the DM make a ruling".

It's evident that this is just one of those things were we're never going to agree. The general direction of this thread seems to be "5e is better because it's simpler". And that's fine - if you want a simple game, and 5e isn't preventing you from doing whatever you want, fine. It's a good system for you. But I object to the characterization of everything 5e hacked out as dross to be burned off, so it's a better system. Take, for instance, flying. In 3.5e, because you had 5 different maneuverability levels, you could play out an encounter where a big, lumbering dragon can be outflanked in tight quarters by a small, maneuverable warlock, even if the dragon is faster on a level sprint. In 5e, since flight works the same way for everybody and the only thing that matters is your flying speed, you've lost the ability to play out that sort of encounter. Well, I mean, you *could* play it - you'd just be using ad hoc rules for it. And if there's one thing that's worse than obscure rules that take a minute to look up, it's ad hoc rules that aren't written down anywhere that you've forgotten by the next time you feel like using them. It's also worth noting that a system that requires you to make up the rules all the time doesn't actually have less rules - it just has rules that can't be consulted, because they're all inside the DM's head.

tl;dr? My problem with 5e is that it feels so much like Baby's First D&D. Simple and easy to learn, but it gives up any real shot at depth in favor of being easy to remember.

YossarianLives

2015-09-06, 08:48 PM

It's amazing how deeply entrenched the Stormwind Fallacy is in the minds of so many RPG players.

Kane0

2015-09-06, 08:50 PM

"Efficient and unambiguous" is not how I would describe a system whose core mechanic seems to be "Eh, have the DM make a ruling".

It's evident that this is just one of those things were we're never going to agree. The general direction of this thread seems to be "5e is better because it's simpler". And that's fine - if you want a simple game, and 5e isn't preventing you from doing whatever you want, fine. It's a good system for you. But I object to the characterization of everything 5e hacked out as dross to be burned off, so it's a better system. Take, for instance, flying. In 3.5e, because you had 5 different maneuverability levels, you could play out an encounter where a big, lumbering dragon can be outflanked in tight quarters by a small, maneuverable warlock, even if the dragon is faster on a level sprint. In 5e, since flight works the same way for everybody and the only thing that matters is your flying speed, you've lost the ability to play out that sort of encounter. Well, I mean, you *could* play it - you'd just be using ad hoc rules for it. And if there's one thing that's worse than obscure rules that take a minute to look up, it's ad hoc rules that aren't written down anywhere that you've forgotten by the next time you feel like using them. It's also worth noting that a system that requires you to make up the rules all the time doesn't actually have less rules - it just has rules that can't be consulted, because they're all inside the DM's head.

tl;dr? My problem with 5e is that it feels so much like Baby's First D&D. Simple and easy to learn, but it gives up any real shot at depth in favor of being easy to remember.

I'm guessing given enough time there will be enough optional rules to accomodate that sort of thing. The DMG already made a start on that with flanking, marking, climbing larger creatures, etc.

rgrekejin

2015-09-06, 08:55 PM

I'm guessing given enough time there will be enough optional rules to accomodate that sort of thing. The DMG already made a start on that with flanking, marking, climbing larger creatures, etc.

I suspect that's also true. 5e is still a very young system, after all. But if 5e reaches the point where it has a lot of optional subsystems to consult, then that sort of defeats the point that it's inherently better because it's simpler and has less subsystems to consult.

Nifft

2015-09-06, 09:05 PM

"Efficient and unambiguous" is not how I would describe a system whose core mechanic seems to be "Eh, have the DM make a ruling". Luckily that's neither system.

Both require DM rulings. For example, in 3.x, the DM sets the Open Locks DC by deciding what kind of lock is there, and the DC scales from 5 to over 100, so 3.x requires a lot more effort and a lot more rulings from the DM.

In 5e, the DCs stay the same over 20 levels. DC 30 is always "nearly impossible". What changes is that the PCs can do the impossible, and that's great.

It The general direction of this thread seems to be "5e is better because it's simpler". Ah ha ha, no.

It's funny because you're over-simplifying the topic of complexity.

You don't have to like 5e, but the reason that it's better is not merely that it's simpler. Lots of games are simpler.

Kane0

2015-09-06, 09:12 PM

I suspect that's also true. 5e is still a very young system, after all. But if 5e reaches the point where it has a lot of optional subsystems to consult, then that sort of defeats the point that it's inherently better because it's simpler and has less subsystems to consult.

Its a shame too, every new edition of D&D had to throw some babies out with the bathwater and that makes some people sad.

Louro

2015-09-06, 09:16 PM

It's amazing how deeply entrenched the Stormwind Fallacy is in the minds of so many RPG players.

Can you play a monk in 3.5?

Kane0

2015-09-06, 09:22 PM

I can give it an honest try, but I hope there's no batmen around hogging all my fancy round house kick spotlight.

Edit: Add monks to the list of awesome things about 5e. Monks are awesome again.
Paladins too.

YossarianLives

2015-09-06, 09:43 PM

Can you play a monk in 3.5?
Yes, just because monks are really, really, funny.

Louro

2015-09-06, 09:54 PM

Yes, just because monks are really, really, funny.
Really?
If you were DM at a table would you let the newbie play a monk?
Are you really that cruel?

Kane0

2015-09-06, 09:58 PM

Really?
If you were DM at a table would you let the newbie play a monk?
Are you really that cruel?

I would, for this single reason:
http://i.imgur.com/cxOTWSE.png

Obviously my table endorses the use of critical failures.

JAL_1138

2015-09-06, 10:01 PM

As an old-timer I bristle somewhat at the "Baby's First D&D" accusations, because it's a bit heavier on crunch in several respects than (core) AD&D was. It's streamlined, easy-to-remember crunch compared to the oft-disjointed, highly-idiosyncratic rules of 2e (and particularly 1e before it, with its segments and bizarre rules for surprise, initiative, and action order, which 2e cleaned up a bit) but there still seems to be more of it in several respects.

Gnomes2169

2015-09-06, 10:28 PM

Have you ever tried to run a past 7th level horror RPG in 3.p... Ever? It just starts grinding to a halt as players just sort of nope everything ever and breeze past encounters unless you murder them with multiple restrictions on class/ spell choice and design each and every area so that the more genre-breaking builds ("lol I can just heal us all from -9 to full with cure light wounds every round, guys. Don't worry") don't break out of the survival-horror feel. It tends to devolve into a hack-and slash starting level 8.

5e's bounded accuracy and massive limitation on spell spam (especially healing), the optional madness, lingering injuries and gritty realism rest rules lend themselves greatly to the horror aspect. Those two shadows you encountered at level 2 that put you in bed for a week? Yeah, they were the advanced scouts for the swarms of 20 that are accompaning the far scarier death knight. Lost an arm or eye? That's actually going to be difficult to get back the day you do due to how likely you are to spend that spell slot... So you actually have to deal with it.

Similarly, 5e does the political intrigue genre better just given how much more limited divination and enchantment magic is now... And also given how diplomancing was nerfed into the ground. Which it really needed to be. ("I greet my political rival in a polite manner that won't infuriate him." *Rolls a 70 because glibness or whatever* The rival is now your most staunch, unbreakable ally, and immediately requests an alliance. Averting the war you were about to wage against him. Welcome to level 10)

If neither of those genres really interest you, then I don't have much more to add. 3.P is more complex and the builds (once decided upon) more reliable and limited, while 5e is more simple and the builds are a bit more flexible and swingy to varrying degrees.

LordBlades

2015-09-06, 10:38 PM

Having the mechanics to support what you're talking about is another avenue to enhanced roleplay.

It also guarantees contsistency. Regardless of how convoluted or difficult might the rules for something be, having rules for it usually means that similar situations play out in a similar way, which is logical. Having the DM make ad-hoc rulings on stuff does not, especially across different DMs.

Daws2727

2015-09-06, 11:16 PM

I started 5e a few months ago, played 4e before that, and have never played PF, but here are a few things I like about 5e:
-Fast encounters, my players enjoy RPing and plot more than combat, but combat is an essential part of D&D and an important part of plot development, and in 5e the balance is perfect so that we get the encounter done in around 10 minutes, and there is still lots of time left for the rest of the game even if we do 4-6 encounters.
-Easy rules, one of my players forgot half the rules of 4e every week, but in 5e there are no cluttering specific rules for specific situations.
-Backgrounds, I just love backgrounds, it really gives you more reason to flesh out your backstory and such, and it actually makes your character unique in their stats.

Hope I could help a little, although I bet others have already covered this stuff.:smallcool:

charcoalninja

2015-09-06, 11:38 PM

Really?
If you were DM at a table would you let the newbie play a monk?
Are you really that cruel?

Pathfinder monk works just fine. I've got a dwarf drunken master in my PF game that has more than held his own in combat throughout. The guys just hit level 7 and Mythic 1.

The horror genre comment reminded me that 5E can't do epic tier well at all since bounded accuracy means your chump conscripts are still a threat to your PCs that are on a quest to punch out fear itself.

I hate having world shaking monstrocities that can't live up to their RP. Orcus for example in 5E has a 17 AC (20 with his wand) and 405 hp. He's pathetically soft with the same defenses as my level 1 cleric. Don't like it. I want orcus to laugh and ignore the rabble sweeping aside normies like one waves away dust. Because he's ORCUS.

JoeJ

2015-09-06, 11:48 PM

Bringing back the Potion Miscibility table is a settling point for me.

An even bigger one, however, is the elimination of the magic mart and associated magic item treadmill. I like that it's my character doing cool things, not just my character's gear.

The fact that there are fewer options during character creation doesn't bother me. The fact of the matter is that 3.PF doesn't really have all that many either; no class/level system does. If I want the freedom to create (almost) any sort of character imaginable, I look to point-build systems like GURPS, M&M, or Hero.

ShikomeKidoMi

2015-09-06, 11:48 PM

I hate having world shaking monstrocities that can't live up to their RP. Orcus for example in 5E has a 17 AC (20 with his wand) and 405 hp. He's pathetically soft with the same defenses as my level 1 cleric. Don't like it. I want orcus to laugh and ignore the rabble sweeping aside normies like one waves away dust. Because he's ORCUS.
Well... He also has like four powers that create undead and commands demon armies, he doesn't particularly have to go fight an army on his own.

Even Baal in Diablo II travelled with a bunch of other demons when he was confronting human armies.

Malifice

2015-09-07, 12:05 AM

YossarianLives

2015-09-07, 12:10 AM

Really?
If you were DM at a table would you let the newbie play a monk?
Are you really that cruel?
Definitely. When playing with people who don't know anything about optimization the classes are much closer in power-level.

LordBlades

2015-09-07, 12:12 AM

Your 1st level cleric has an AC of 20, 405 HP and resistance to non-magical weapons?

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?

Naanomi

2015-09-07, 12:15 AM

Definitely. When playing with people who don't know anything about optimization the classes are much closer in power-level.
To a degree, though someone picks 'druid' accidentally and watches their companion outperform half the party things can start to feel sad

rollingForInit

2015-09-07, 12:24 AM

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?

Given that virtually no commoner would have magical weapons, let alone a lot of them, an entire town of them could try and beat at him without success. And even if some of them had, they'd rarely have more than +3 to hit, so they'd need to roll 17. Also, even one Circle of Death would leave a lot of those commoners dead.

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 12:30 AM

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?

Since that assumes he's just standing there letting everybody hit him, not at all.

I do, however, find it a big anticlimactic that my high level PC isn't particularly special because every small town in the world has to have equally high level characters just to defend them against random monster attacks.

Sigreid

2015-09-07, 12:36 AM

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?

While it's true that quantity has a quality all its own, it's also true that when massive mobs attack one guy only a tiny fraction of that available mob power is able to come to bear at one time.

LordBlades

2015-09-07, 12:41 AM

Since that assumes he's just standing there letting everybody hit him, not at all.

I do, however, find it a big anticlimactic that my high level PC isn't particularly special because every small town in the world has to have equally high level characters just to defend them against random monster attacks.

On the other hand, in 5e, your high level master swordsman is soo special that some random guy you pick off the side of the road and dress in a full plate will on average dodge/block one third of your hits (+6 prof +5 str=+11 attack vs. 18 AC).

Princess

2015-09-07, 12:43 AM

On the other hand, in 5e, your high level master swordsman is soo special that some random guy you pick off the side of the road and dress in a full plate will on average dodge/block one third of your hits (+6 prof +5 str=+11 attack vs. 18 AC).

That actually isn't an unreasonable representation of how hard it really is to injure someone wearing well-made heavy body armour.

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 01:15 AM

On the other hand, in 5e, your high level master swordsman is soo special that some random guy you pick off the side of the road and dress in a full plate will on average dodge/block one third of your hits (+6 prof +5 str=+11 attack vs. 18 AC).

Which sounds pretty reasonable, actually. What's funny is that even with bounded accuracy, if the peasants spread out, the 5e master swordsman can kill them faster than a PF master swordsman, because he doesn't lose all but one of his attacks if he takes more than a single step.

MadBear

2015-09-07, 01:38 AM

Let's not also forget that this theoretical master swordsmen is also likely swinging 2-4 times meaning they're probably hitting 1-2 per round, and if they do a quick shove to give themselves advantage, they're likely to hit even more often.

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 01:59 AM

Take, for instance, flying. In 3.5e, because you had 5 different maneuverability levels, you could play out an encounter where a big, lumbering dragon can be outflanked in tight quarters by a small, maneuverable warlock, even if the dragon is faster on a level sprint. In 5e, since flight works the same way for everybody and the only thing that matters is your flying speed, you've lost the ability to play out that sort of encounter. Well, I mean, you *could* play it - you'd just be using ad hoc rules for it. And if there's one thing that's worse than obscure rules that take a minute to look up, it's ad hoc rules that aren't written down anywhere that you've forgotten by the next time you feel like using them. It's also worth noting that a system that requires you to make up the rules all the time doesn't actually have less rules - it just has rules that can't be consulted, because they're all inside the DM's head.

I guess you could make up something ad hoc. Or you could simply use the existing rules. Skill contests are found on p. 174 of the PHB. Roll a check of your Dexterity(Acrobatics) against the dragon's. If you win, you've managed to outmaneuver the dragon. What that gets you depends on the specifics of the environment.

Malifice

2015-09-07, 02:26 AM

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?

Commoner stats are +0 to hit with a bow. They need natural 20's to hit, and he's immune to non-magic B,P and S attacks.

You'd literally need a veritable army of them all armed with magic bows to have a chance. Convincing them to try is another thing entirely.

Orcus uses time stop on turn 1 to conjure 500HD of undead (A few liches or deathknights), plus he has a few rounds to conjure a few dozen wraiths, wights ghouls, and zombies before killing all the peasants with circle of death (and a barrage of fireballs from the liches/ knights).

LordBlades

2015-09-07, 02:38 AM

Commoner stats are +0 to hit with a bow. They need natural 20's to hit, and he's immune to non-magic B,P and S attacks.

.

Is he flat-out immune to non magical attacks or does he only have resistance?

Malifice

2015-09-07, 02:42 AM

Is he flat-out immune to non magical attacks or does he only have resistance?

Flat out immunity.

Not that a bunch of commoners could get to him. He's a super genius immortal demon lord protected by a legion of demons and undead who lives in the Abyss.

Gwendol

2015-09-07, 02:50 AM

On the other hand, in 5e, your high level master swordsman is soo special that some random guy you pick off the side of the road and dress in a full plate will on average dodge/block one third of your hits (+6 prof +5 str=+11 attack vs. 18 AC).

On the other hand, in 3e, your high level master swordsman is unable to shove the random guy in full plate to the ground, disarm, sunder or whatever without a number of feats (additionally forcing the fighter to jack up his INT to qualify). In 5e he can.

Malifice

2015-09-07, 03:22 AM

On the other hand, in 5e, your high level master swordsman is soo special that some random guy you pick off the side of the road and dress in a full plate will on average dodge/block one third of your hits (+6 prof +5 str=+11 attack vs. 18 AC).

Your master swordsman rolls 4 dice to hit. 8 dice if he action surges. Gets an extra attack too if he crits as a bonus action. Probably also has superiority dice (d12) up his sleeve to add to those D20 rolls to hit the low level mook in full plate (precise strike maneuver).

On average, he brutally murders the low level guy in full plate in about a second or so.

Steampunkette

2015-09-07, 03:31 AM

For the orcus debate. It would take thousands of commoners to even have a decent shot at killing Orcua.

Let's say, for sake of argument, he stands still and lets them swing away. How many commoners can base with him? What weapons have they got? Improvised or non proficient penalties?

So long as he doesn't kill the ones pressed againat him, he only has to deal with a handful of improvised and nonproficient attacks that at best do half damage from a small cluster of yokels while he slaughters and animates the ones behind the front line.

Orcus would, essentially, be immune to defeat by commoners. At least within any reasonable timeframe. If you use infinite commoners and infinite time he dies, but shy of that he's gonna win 9 times out of 10.

Gnomes2169

2015-09-07, 03:46 AM

Malifice

2015-09-07, 03:53 AM

*999,999 times out of 1,000,000. And this is if you use all of the commoners on the sword coast (500 hp of undead is a lot of liches and a demi-lich or two... Or just a lot of Shadows. Which brutally murder and convert every single peasant they are thrown up against. Either or.)

You'd have to arm those commoners with magic weapons too, due to Orcus's immunity to non magic weapon damage.

Maybe they could do the Russian Army in WW2 thing and send the first wave in with weapons, and the second wave unarmed (to pick up the weapons of the dead guys in the first wave).

I can see them all now, surging forward amidst the cacophony of fireballs, skeletal hands grabbing their legs, and Orcus and his lich cadre flying up into the sky, raining down death, as a commissar spurs them forward.

goto124

2015-09-07, 04:24 AM

and my 5e barbarian doesn't have to wear a shirt to maintain a respecable AC. Why would I accept anything less?

Wait, I can actually be topless in 5e?

*looks for a 5e campaign :smalltongue:*

So bascially, high 'floor' and no ridiculous amounts of optimization required to be remotely viable?

Gnomes2169

2015-09-07, 05:03 AM

You'd have to arm those commoners with magic weapons too, due to Orcus's immunity to non magic weapon damage.

Maybe they could do the Russian Army in WW2 thing and send the first wave in with weapons, and the second wave unarmed (to pick up the weapons of the dead guys in the first wave).

I can see them all now, surging forward amidst the cacophony of fireballs, skeletal hands grabbing their legs, and Orcus and his lich cadre flying up into the sky, raining down death, as a commissar spurs them forward.
... FOR ZE EMPRAH!!!!!

Wait, I can actually be topless in 5e?

*looks for a 5e campaign :smalltongue:*

So bascially, high 'floor' and no ridiculous amounts of optimization required to be remotely viable?

Yes. Yes you can. You don't even need to wear pants.

...

Though I still require pants (think of the children here! We can't indecently expose them to those sexy calves and ankles! Entirely too lewd.)

Louro

2015-09-07, 05:25 AM

Definitely. When playing with people who don't know anything about optimization the classes are much closer in power-level.
I played a monk at a non-optimization table till lv 12. No metamagic cleric, no chargy-jumpy thw-handed guy...
My character was the only "optimized" one, with the chain feat hit-trip-grapple-hit thing and ignoring their restrictions. It was rather fun at th beginning but at some point later, the most useful thing he could do was to pull unconscious partners out of danger or give them a potion.
He was good at only one thing: running. Often people say they have a great survivability. Of course they have! It's easy to survive when nobody cares about you.

goto124

2015-09-07, 06:22 AM

Though I still require pants (think of the children here! We can't indecently expose them to those sexy calves and ankles! Entirely too lewd.)

You only need knee-length boots for those. That can be done with... refluffing, I suppose.

I'll attempt to get back on topic and say something about 'no optimization needed, especially in the PF sense, and unoptimal =/= useless dead sack'

JAL_1138

2015-09-07, 07:08 AM

Wait, I can actually be topless in 5e?

*looks for a 5e campaign :smalltongue:*

So bascially, high 'floor' and no ridiculous amounts of optimization required to be remotely viable?

Barbarians get (dex bonus + con bonus) to AC when not wearing armor instead of just dex bonus (and they can still use a shield), and a speed increase of 5ft when not using heavy armor.

Higher floor, and lower ceiling. Fewer trap options--some subclasses are slightly overpowered, and some underwhelm slightly (and one is poor at emulating the concept it's supposed to be but works out balance-wise), but they all work reasonably well. The difference between them is not so extreme that they wouldn't still do fine in the same party. You've basically got to try (or not understand the class' strengths and weaknesses) in order to be ineffective.

rgrekejin

2015-09-07, 08:05 AM

I guess you could make up something ad hoc. Or you could simply use the existing rules. Skill contests are found on p. 174 of the PHB. Roll a check of your Dexterity(Acrobatics) against the dragon's. If you win, you've managed to outmaneuver the dragon. What that gets you depends on the specifics of the environment.

Movement while flying is governed by the movement rules, not the skill contest rules. If you're doing this, it's because you've decided to break the existing rules of how movement works in favor of something ad hoc.

Furthermore, Dragons' Dex scores don't change with their size category, so a big, lumbering ancient dragon is just as maneuverable as a wyrmling under this system, which is precisely the problem I'm trying to avoid.

MadBear

2015-09-07, 09:11 AM

Movement while flying is governed by the movement rules, not the skill contest rules. If you're doing this, it's because you've decided to break the existing rules of how movement works in favor of something ad hoc.

Furthermore, Dragons' Dex scores don't change with their size category, so a big, lumbering ancient dragon is just as maneuverable as a wyrmling under this system, which is precisely the problem I'm trying to avoid.

While true, I'll take this over the overly pedantic PF rules any day.

LordBlades

2015-09-07, 10:03 AM

The difference between them is not so extreme that they wouldn't still do fine in the same party.
I'd genuinely want to see a Beastmaster or a 4 Elements Monk pull their weight in an optimized party.

JAL_1138

2015-09-07, 10:28 AM

I'd genuinely want to see a Beastmaster or a 4 Elements Monk pull their weight in an optimized party.

Well, someone played a Lvl 12 Four Elements monk and reported on it here:

So, I'm (finally) back, and I have an update on my opinion.

If you're playing a class to deal a ton of damage, don't play a monk. No matter what path you choose, you will not be able to get the damage you wish for with a monk. Even the Way of the Four Elements monk, with the Fist of Unbroken Air at max ki expenditure can only deal 6d10 damage at high levels (5d10 right now). That pales in comparison to what a Great Weapon fighter can unleash every turn (our great weapon master fighter really unloads every turn).

However, the plethora of other useful abilities makes the monk definitely worth picking. At the moment, with a standard-array character, I have an AC of 18, which is pretty good. I also can behave as a Swiss army knife with my ability to use elemental attunement along with my other class features (like immunity to poison/disease - best thing ever at high levels, some diseases are nasty!).

I struggle to land stunning strikes, because a lot of the enemies that are important enough to warrant a shutdown with 3 ki points are big baddies who have a high constitution score. However, when I do land it, the fighter and rogue in our party appreciate it greatly.

The biggest thing for me, though, is how well I can synergize with other party members. It's important to remember that although your buddy may be rolling the sneak attack damage dice, you were the one who spent a ki point to dodge that allows you to be safely adjacent to the target and give him that opportunity for the sneak attack dice. Although the fighter rolled 3 hits and unleashed 70+ damage, you were the one who used a stunning strike to ensure those hits got through. Although the wizard cast fireball to severely damage the enemy, you were the one who could stand fearlessly on the front lines because of evasion/dodge.

I still don't get to use my ki abilities from my specialty often, largely because the uses in the martial arts description are so good, but every once in a while I can cast shatter, gust of wind, fist of unbroken air, or gaseous form with great effect.

Do I feel a bit useless sometimes? By myself, yes. Monks aren't the best for solo adventuring or damage dealing. However, they work very well with others, and they're great for imposing status effects on opponents (and on myself), and that makes my character worthwhile. No matter what monk path you choose, you're not going to have the damage output of the fighter or the rogue, but you can significantly increase their capabilities.

TL;DR: The 4 elements monk is still a monk, and that's a great benefit to any team. However, way of the 4 elements monk's abilities don't get used as often as you might hope, and that's OK. If you're envisioning playing a firebender from Avatar, you won't get that. However, you can every once in a while use an ability that changes things for everyone, but that's not as useful as your everyday ability to take actions in the heat of combat and avoid getting hit with a bonus action dodge, along with your suite of other abilities that make monks great.

General result: slightly underwhelming, but still pretty good, especially in a support role.

Naanomi

2015-09-07, 10:32 AM

In AL we had someone with a crab pet who was very reasonable combat control

Tenmujiin

2015-09-07, 10:58 AM

I'd genuinely want to see a Beastmaster or a 4 Elements Monk pull their weight in an optimized party.

Beast-master pulls as good DPR or slightly lower with an at-will rider as other martials and still has access to ranger spells and class features. The problem with the beast-master is that you don't have a beast companion you have a robot that can't act independently which is a fluff problem not a mechanical one. While it is caused by the mechanics it is acceptably balanced and the problem comes from clashing fluff not the mechanics themselves. The beast-master animal companion rules would work great for a magical/technological minion that has to be directly controlled.

As for 4 elements monk I've only seen them at low level but he was basically a monk that swapped control for AoE damage (he took burning hands).

YossarianLives

2015-09-07, 11:02 AM

To a degree, though someone picks 'druid' accidentally and watches their companion outperform half the party things can start to feel sad
I would normally agree with you, however most of the new people I DM for would probably wade into melee with their druids hacking with a scimitar and occasionally casting a healing spell and leaving their animal companion behind for no reason.

I played a monk at a non-optimization table till lv 12. No metamagic cleric, no chargy-jumpy thw-handed guy...
My character was the only "optimized" one, with the chain feat hit-trip-grapple-hit thing and ignoring their restrictions. It was rather fun at the beginning but at some point later, the most useful thing he could do was to pull unconscious partners out of danger or give them a potion. He was good at only one thing: running. Often people say they have a great survivability. Of course they have! It's easy to survive when nobody cares about you.
I can understand that it doesn't work for everyone but monks have always fared well in my low-OP campaigns.

LordBlades

2015-09-07, 11:38 AM

Beast-master pulls as good DPR or slightly lower with an at-will rider as other martials and still has access to ranger spells and class features.

Do those other martials the beastmaster is supposedly keeping up in DPR include fighter and paladin?

If so, I'd be very curious to see such a Beastmaster build.

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 12:12 PM

Movement while flying is governed by the movement rules, not the skill contest rules. If you're doing this, it's because you've decided to break the existing rules of how movement works in favor of something ad hoc.

Movement is governed by the movement rules and contests are governed by the contest rules. There is no contradiction; both apply. The sidebar on p. 195 of the PHB explicitly says that contests can occur during combat. So what I pointed to is not ad hoc at all, it is RAW.

I'm assuming that this situation involves both parties swooping around attacking each other. If one of them is trying to get away from the other, the chase rules are on pp. 252-255 of the DMG.

Furthermore, Dragons' Dex scores don't change with their size category, so a big, lumbering ancient dragon is just as maneuverable as a wyrmling under this system, which is precisely the problem I'm trying to avoid.

That's not a problem with the rules. It's just that your idea of what a dragon's stats should be is a little different that WotC's. Fortunately, the DM can change a monsters stats to be whatever they want, so that's not a problem. Or they could leave the stats the same and impose Disadvantage on the contest to represent the dragon's immense bulk.

MadBear

2015-09-07, 02:22 PM

Do those other martials the beastmaster is supposedly keeping up in DPR include fighter and paladin?

If so, I'd be very curious to see such a Beastmaster build.

I'll give you what I would do if I played the beastmaster.

Race: Wood Elf- iconic, straight forward and stat increases in the right places
fighting style: TWF- Ranger is a strong choice for twf in my opinion.
Beast: Wolf- It's classic, and is a really strong choice
spell selection: Hunters mark is a great spell for a class that doesn't get a ton of daily spells
Stat Array: (you can totally drop wisdom down if you want to have no negative stats).
str-10
dex-16
con-14
int-8
wis-16
char-10

Assumptions:
1. I'll always be fighting along side companion
2. hunters mark will be up whenever extra damage is neede

Lvl 3:
Wolf attacks once: +6 attack, does 2d4+4 (9) DC11 or knocked prone
Me I attack once: +5 attack, does 1d6+3 (6.5)
If I feel fight will drag out, I'll cast hunters mark and do 2d6+3

This means if I hit I'll be averaging around 15.5-19 damage per round at level 3. The wolf will always have advantage, and one failed strength save, and I'll have advantage.

Lvl 5:
Wolf: +7 attack, does 2d4 + 5 (10) DC 11 or knocked prone
I'll attack Twice: +7, doing 1d6+4 (15)
again hunters mark will be cast if the fight will drag out.

This means at level 5 I'm putting out 25-28.5 damage per round

Lvl 9:
Wolf: +8, does 2d4 + 6 (11) DC11 or knocked prone
I'll attack twice: +9, doing 1d6+5 (17)
again with hunters mark.

Here we see the damage bump isn't that big (28.5-32), but it will be going up again soon.

Lvl 12:
Wolf attacks twice: +8 doing 2d4+6 (22) DC 11 or knocked prone
I'll attack twice: +9, doing 1d8+5 (19) (for sake of argument I'll pick up TWF feat at this level)
again hunters mark should/will likely be active

Here the damage is 41-44.5 damage per round.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now the prone will happen less and less as I level, but by then I'll have enough stat boosts/magical weapons that it balances. The wolf on the other hand will always be a good source of damage since it will always have advantage.

To bring this full circle a lvl 12 GW Fighter with the feat will be swinging 3 times doing: +9, 2d6+5 + 1d10 (superiority dice)= 52.5 with superiority dice, or 36 without. Sometimes he'll get a free bonus attack to up this further (which does substantially up his lethality), but he also doesn't generate advantage for himself. Additionally, if the need arises the Ranger can have him and the beast divide too attack those across the entire room. He sacrifices burst damage for this for this (by level 12 hunters mark should be up most of the day), unless the fighter is using 2-3 superiority dice in a single turn.

So the ranger is keeping up quite well at this point, and I'm sure if you looked at AC the advantage given by the wolf would help balance this out. To be fair, the fighter could always action surge, then again the ranger has access to higher level spells that I haven't even bothered to let him use.

Now with that said, the bigger issues with the BM is that the beast feels like a robot, and the fact that it's quite squishy if you don't invest in some barding for the bugger.

So while this doesn't show that the ranger is superior to the fighter, I think it does clearly demonstrate that the ranger is keeping up in damage while bring some good utility to the table. In fact you're less likely to be ambushed since you have a beast with +5-+9 perceptions checks with advantage around.

Telwar

2015-09-07, 02:49 PM

Barbarians get (dex bonus + con bonus) to AC when not wearing armor instead of just dex bonus (and they can still use a shield), and a speed increase of 5ft when not using heavy armor.

My Egyptian (reskinned dwarf) barbarian in our Aeneid-ish game usually fought in a breechclout-and-shield as a result of this, as was apparently intended.

rgrekejin

2015-09-07, 04:34 PM

Movement is governed by the movement rules and contests are governed by the contest rules. There is no contradiction; both apply. The sidebar on p. 195 of the PHB explicitly says that contests can occur during combat. So what I pointed to is not ad hoc at all, it is RAW.

Well, of course it's RAW when you have a rule which, by RAW, is essentially "If you can't find a rule that fits your situation, just make one up". If that catch-all exists, than literally anything becomes RAW.

That's not a problem with the rules. It's just that your idea of what a dragon's stats should be is a little different that WotC's. Fortunately, the DM can change a monsters stats to be whatever they want, so that's not a problem. Or they could leave the stats the same and impose Disadvantage on the contest to represent the dragon's immense bulk.

In fact, it is a problem with the rules. In 3.x, you had discreet rules which governed different aspects of flying - creatures had a fly speed and a maneuverability level. Big monsters with wide turn radii that flew via non-magical means tended to have worse maneuverability, and small things capable of turning quicker or creatures with magical flight had better maneuverability. So, as Dragons got bigger, their maneuverability got worse. Their Dex stayed the same, because Dexterity (rightly) never entered into the equation - how dextrous a monster is really has no relation to it's aerial maneuverability, which is more a function of sheer size in instances where the flight is non-magical. 5e, in its zeal to pare out all but the most bare-bones rules, chopped maneuverability in favor of everyone just using fly speeds. Your proposed solution to this problem is to use a skill challenge based on acrobatics as a proxy for maneuverability. The reason I point out that Dragons of all age categories have the same Dex, and therefore the same Acrobatics check regardless of size, is that it means that Acrobatics is in fact a really terrible proxy for the sort of thing maneuverability is intended to represent. What about a Wizard who casts fly on themselves? Even if their spell allows them to stop on a dime, and reverse direction at the speed of thought, their Acrobatics check is going to suck, because there's no reason in the course of the main game for them to be proficient in it. Could you ad hoc it the way you describe, and arbitrarily throw disadvantage on any big creature? Sure, but that's arbitrary and ad hoc. What do you do, say, when your PCs decide to engage in a little PvP, and one of them turns into a dragon. Impose arbitrary penalties on them because you did it against monsters, even though he can quite rightly claim that the movement rules say he should be allowed to do the thing he's trying to do?

If you'll allow me to wax statistically for a moment, think about 5e and 3.x both as mathematical models for a fantasy adventure. 5e would be a model which has been developed with a small number of data points, and 3.x would be a model which has been developed with a larger number of data points. As a result, both models work reasonably well under most circumstances, but the 5e model has a greater propensity for breaking down with certain inputs, whereas 3.x is more robust, and produces results which more consistently approximate what a fantasy adventure's "reality" might be.

Pex

2015-09-07, 04:42 PM

In a recent combat in a game watching the fighter player do things, this thread came to mind. I had to admit to myself, it was nice he was able to do those things without needing a feat for it and have a good shot at doing it if a roll was even needed. However, I will also include the DM as a contributing factor. He was one of the co-DMs of my former 5E group I had quit due to let's say RPG playing philosophy conflicts I had with some players and the other co-DM. This DM I really liked and am happy to play with again. His philosophy is to let a player try whatever he wants, and he's fair in the ease/difficulty of the attempted task.

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 05:10 PM

In fact, it is a problem with the rules. In 3.x, you had discreet rules which governed different aspects of flying - creatures had a fly speed and a maneuverability level. Big monsters with wide turn radii that flew via non-magical means tended to have worse maneuverability, and small things capable of turning quicker or creatures with magical flight had better maneuverability. So, as Dragons got bigger, their maneuverability got worse. Their Dex stayed the same, because Dexterity (rightly) never entered into the equation - how dextrous a monster is really has no relation to it's aerial maneuverability, which is more a function of sheer size in instances where the flight is non-magical. 5e, in its zeal to pare out all but the most bare-bones rules, chopped maneuverability in favor of everyone just using fly speeds.

I get that dragons don't work the way you imagine they would, or the way they did in previous editions, but that's still not a rules problem any more than its a problem that orcs are chaotic evil now instead of lawful evil.

Why should maneuverability in the air be treated any different than maneuverability on the ground? I could understand objecting that overall agility and manual dexterity shouldn't be the same ability, but that problem has been a part of the game since its earliest origin. I don't see why a big, bulky creature should be automatically treated as clumsy when it flies if it's not treated that way when it runs.

Your proposed solution to this problem is to use a skill challenge based on acrobatics as a proxy for maneuverability. The reason I point out that Dragons of all age categories have the same Dex, and therefore the same Acrobatics check regardless of size, is that it means that Acrobatics is in fact a really terrible proxy for the sort of thing maneuverability is intended to represent. What about a Wizard who casts fly on themselves? Even if their spell allows them to stop on a dime, and reverse direction at the speed of thought, their Acrobatics check is going to suck, because there's no reason in the course of the main game for them to be proficient in it.

If a wizard is planning on engaging in acrobatics, whether on the ground or in the air, they should choose acrobatics as a proficiency. And probably boost their dexterity, too (which also has other advantages). The acrobatics skill is, among other things, used to perform "dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips." So again, why should the rules treat doing those things in the air differently than doing them on the ground?

The dragons in the MM have the same dexterity at all age categories because the creators didn't envision them getting slower or clumsier as they age. Dragons you create as a DM can work differently. Dragons don't exist in the real world, so neither one is more realistic than the other.

Could you ad hoc it the way you describe, and arbitrarily throw disadvantage on any big creature? Sure, but that's arbitrary and ad hoc. What do you do, say, when your PCs decide to engage in a little PvP, and one of them turns into a dragon. Impose arbitrary penalties on them because you did it against monsters, even though he can quite rightly claim that the movement rules say he should be allowed to do the thing he's trying to do?

What I said is that you could give disadvantage. I didn't that I would do it. I would just leave the rules as they are and described the dragon twisting itself around in flight, turning its head and moving its limbs and tail to attack in any direction. Like a big reptilian bird instead of like an airplane. However if I had, for some reason, given a monster disadvantage (or advantage) on certain skills based on its size, then that would be an addition I had made to its stat block. So I would absolutely do the same for a PC polymorphed into that monster. If you polymorph into a creature you get that creature's stats (except when stated otherwise in the spell description).

charcoalninja

2015-09-07, 05:36 PM

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 06:02 PM

It's not that Orcus can be taken out by peasants that's the problem, it's the fact that he can only take 405 damae before he dies, which for a full party of PCs isn't going to take very long and he could reasonably be snuffed in 2-3 rounds by a party of even mid levels. That's extremely disappointing. The liches he controls are more of a threat than he is himself, at least defensively. Offensively he's amazing! But I don't like how squishy everything is. Battles are over before they begin. It's an issue PF struggles with as well.

Something that Mutants and Masterminds has, and that all versions of D&D have needed, is a "Power Level X". That is, creatures that work by DM fiat and can't be successfully fought by normal means. In M&M it applies to beings like Trigon, or the Spectre at his strongest, who simply can't be defeated without the right macguffin.

This has to be handled with care, because it gets annoying fast if its overused. It's perfect for an end-of-campaign villain like Orcus, though.

Naanomi

2015-09-07, 06:03 PM

There is a reason Orcus sits on his throne and plots instead of leading armies in battle.

Hawkstar

2015-09-07, 06:07 PM

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?
Nope. There is no such thing as a "commoner" - Everyone is a hero of their own story, with their own ambitions and agency. If they can stay sufficiently motivated to uniformly tear Orcus apart in the wake of being cut down like flies, ignoring or having defeated the armies at his beck and call, sustaining the fight (Instead of submitting to the SEP field), finding the hits they do land be all but shrugged off, etc. they deserve to be able to bring him down.

His philosophy is to let a player try whatever he wants, and he's fair in the ease/difficulty of the attempted task.
So... a DM that actually plays by 5e's DMing rules.

Demonic Spoon

2015-09-07, 06:30 PM

There is precedent for creatures that simply cannot be fought by common people - note that the Tarrasque is immune to nonmagical weapons.

That said, creatures can be powerful for reasons other than being able to single-handedly cut down an entire army fighting honorably on an open field. I'd point to dragons. An ancient dragon could be killed if it tried to fight 1000 commoners with crossbows on an open field. However, he wouldn't do that. He'd fly away, come back, breath fire on them and kill a swath of them, then fly away again, lure them into an enclosed space so only a few can come at them at a time, or burn their supply caravans until they starve.. The dragon would unquestionably win against an army of commoners because a dragon is smart. In my opinion, that's a whole lot more interesting than "the dragon can just waltz around doing whatever he wants until a group of high level adventurers show up".

If you'll allow me to wax statistically for a moment, think about 5e and 3.x both as mathematical models for a fantasy adventure. 5e would be a model which has been developed with a small number of data points, and 3.x would be a model which has been developed with a larger number of data points. As a result, both models work reasonably well under most circumstances, but the 5e model has a greater propensity for breaking down with certain inputs, whereas 3.x is more robust, and produces results which more consistently approximate what a fantasy adventure's "reality" might be.

On the contrary - it's not that 5e has fewer data points, it's that 5e has fewer rigidly-defined data points. To extend your analogy, 3.5e is a mathematical model for a fantasy adventure that is predefined and set upon a group, and they must work within that model to construct said fantasy adventure. 5e is a model which the DM is always tweaking to best fit the thing they are trying to simulate. The rules can't "break down" because the very complex and weird interactions are adjudicated by the DM based on whatever makes sense and doesn't break down. By contrast, in 3.5, the rules tell you what happens and you need to explicitly write houserules if you want to make them not break down. For example, the the rules flat out say that if you roll X on your diplomacy roll, this creature that previously hated you is now basically your slave. If that's not "breaking down", I don't know what is.

Pex

2015-09-07, 06:49 PM

So... a DM that actually plays by 5e's DMing rules.

Yes, as opposed to the other co-DM whose philosophy is a player should never get what he wants. He argued for 20 minutes with a player on the ability to jury rig a mast on a ship, finally relented, but still resented it and vowed it would never happen again.

charcoalninja

2015-09-07, 07:12 PM

I always pictured Orcus as more powerful in his own right and not a feeble emperor sitting back letting his undead do the heavy lifting for him. He leads legions of undead, but I never imagined him being one to run or hide from a fight, maybe he is. Could be I'm playing with Orcus and expecting Demogorgon.

I just don't like a primary force of evil in the universe that has slain gods to be vulnerable to be taken down by a group of 12th level PCs is all, let alone in a handful of rounds in a bliztkrieg.

rgrekejin

2015-09-07, 07:28 PM

Why should maneuverability in the air be treated any different than maneuverability on the ground? I could understand objecting that overall agility and manual dexterity shouldn't be the same ability, but that problem has been a part of the game since its earliest origin. I don't see why a big, bulky creature should be automatically treated as clumsy when it flies if it's not treated that way when it runs.

In what way does Dexterity actually effect maneuverability on the ground? It doesn't, to my knowledge. You have a movement speed, and everyone with the same movement speed is can move to the same square regardless of dexterity. As to why maneuverability in the air should be treated differently than maneuverability on the grounds: you're flying, for God's sake! Gravity pulls you down, so you move faster when moving down than up. There's no friction to allow you to pivot in place, so you have to make wide, banking turns if you want to reverse your direction of travel. If you can't hover in place, you fall (which, I grant, 5e actually does recognize). Constant forward motion is required. In 3.x, Maneuverability levels took all those things into account. In 5e, there is no system that does so, and since these are not things that have anything in particular to do with a creature's dexterity, but with it's physical makeup and method of flight, there isn't a good proxy available to use. So if I want to model a creature which is dextrous, but has the maneuverability of a barn because it's literally as big as a barn, that is a thing that I can not do without smuggling in 3.x rules or making up something ad hoc on the fly, because 5e lacks the necessary rules and lacks any good proxy to houserule by.

If a wizard is planning on engaging in acrobatics, whether on the ground or in the air, they should choose acrobatics as a proficiency. And probably boost their dexterity, too (which also has other advantages). The acrobatics skill is, among other things, used to perform "dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips." So again, why should the rules treat doing those things in the air differently than doing them on the ground?

The dragons in the MM have the same dexterity at all age categories because the creators didn't envision them getting slower or clumsier as they age. Dragons you create as a DM can work differently. Dragons don't exist in the real world, so neither one is more realistic than the other.

As I pointed out above, the fact that you keep trying to equate acrobatics with aerial maneuverability seems to be stemming from a misunderstanding about what maneuverability actually represents. When you're on a hang glider, it doesn't matter it you're Batman or Inspector Clouseau - the maneuverability of the hang glider is determined by the shape and construction of the hand glider. Your personal dexterity is irrelevant.

Ultimately, I guess it's just a question of how close an approximation you're willing to accept. To me, trying to use the Acrobatics rules to govern aerial maneuverability would be somewhat akin to using an Athletics check to determine how far you can move in a round. It's kind tangentially related to the thing you're trying to model, but that's not really what it's designed to measure, and it's not even really a that good proxy for it.

INDYSTAR188

2015-09-07, 08:35 PM

*Snip: Really awesome write up*

So while this doesn't show that the ranger is superior to the fighter, I think it does clearly demonstrate that the ranger is keeping up in damage while bring some good utility to the table. In fact you're less likely to be ambushed since you have a beast with +5-+9 perceptions checks with advantage around.

As someone who had concerns about the Beast Master, I think this was really helpful and well put together. I had been considering ways to boost the class for a player but this makes me feel a lot better!

Malifice

2015-09-07, 09:22 PM

It's not that Orcus can be taken out by peasants that's the problem, it's the fact that he can only take 405 damae before he dies, which for a full party of PCs isn't going to take very long and he could reasonably be snuffed in 2-3 rounds by a party of even mid levels. That's extremely disappointing. The liches he controls are more of a threat than he is himself, at least defensively. Offensively he's amazing! But I don't like how squishy everything is. Battles are over before they begin. It's an issue PF struggles with as well.

I don't agree at all.

When you encounter Orcus, you get him, 2 death Knights, a lich and an army of shadows/ banshees (for example).

That's... Not an easy fight for a high level party, let alone easily destroyed by a mid level one.

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 09:44 PM

In what way does Dexterity actually effect maneuverability on the ground? It doesn't, to my knowledge. You have a movement speed, and everyone with the same movement speed is can move to the same square regardless of dexterity. As to why maneuverability in the air should be treated differently than maneuverability on the grounds: you're flying, for God's sake! Gravity pulls you down, so you move faster when moving down than up. There's no friction to allow you to pivot in place, so you have to make wide, banking turns if you want to reverse your direction of travel. If you can't hover in place, you fall (which, I grant, 5e actually does recognize). Constant forward motion is required. In 3.x, Maneuverability levels took all those things into account.

A creature moving on the ground also has to deal with gravity. And constantly shifting balance, terrain, variable friction, and many other factors. Those variables are glossed over in the game because creatures that naturally move that way don't have to consciously think about them. And creatures moving that way unnaturally are generally using magic. It's the same with air and water movement. As others have pointed out many times, 5e is more granular than 3.5; it glosses over more of the fine detail.

In 5e, there is no system that does so, and since these are not things that have anything in particular to do with a creature's dexterity, but with it's physical makeup and method of flight, there isn't a good proxy available to use. So if I want to model a creature which is dextrous, but has the maneuverability of a barn because it's literally as big as a barn, that is a thing that I can not do without smuggling in 3.x rules or making up something ad hoc on the fly, because 5e lacks the necessary rules and lacks any good proxy to houserule by.

I don't recall any rule in 3.5 that tells you what aerial maneuverability class to assign to a monster. If you want something that's not in the book, you just have to make it up. Sort of like how in 5e if you want a monster to be more or less agile than it's dexterity score indicates you can decide that it has advantage or disadvantage on certain ability checks. The rule you want is there: the disadvantage/advantage mechanic. It's up to the DM to decide whether or not to apply it in any given case.

As I pointed out above, the fact that you keep trying to equate acrobatics with aerial maneuverability seems to be stemming from a misunderstanding about what maneuverability actually represents. When you're on a hang glider, it doesn't matter it you're Batman or Inspector Clouseau - the maneuverability of the hang glider is determined by the shape and construction of the hand glider. Your personal dexterity is irrelevant.

If hang gliders appear in your world often enough that people actually learn to use them, then you should create a tool proficiency for Vehicles (Air) because the ability to perform a maneuver effectively and at the right time is a matter of skill much more than vehicle design. Especially in the heroic action adventure genre! Batman in a hang glider will outfly you or me in an F-16 every time.

Ultimately, I guess it's just a question of how close an approximation you're willing to accept. To me, trying to use the Acrobatics rules to govern aerial maneuverability would be somewhat akin to using an Athletics check to determine how far you can move in a round. It's kind tangentially related to the thing you're trying to model, but that's not really what it's designed to measure, and it's not even really a that good proxy for it.

You're misunderstanding the role of the ability check. You don't roll to move but to see if you can outmaneuver your opponent in a way that accomplishes whatever it is you were trying to accomplish. If all you want to do is move you don't need to roll at all; just move. If you're trying to beat somebody in a straight up race (and they have the same speed you do), then a contest using either Strength (Athletics) or Constitution (Athletics) is absolutely appropriate. And if you're engaged in a chase across the rooftops, then use the chase rules.

georgie_leech

2015-09-07, 09:58 PM

you're misunderstanding the role of the ability check. You don't roll to move but to see if you can outmaneuver your opponent in a way that accomplishes whatever it is you were trying to accomplish. If all you want to do is move you don't need to roll at all; just move. If you're trying to beat somebody in a straight up race (and they have the same speed you do), then a contest using either Strength (Athletics) or Constitution (Athletics) is absolutely appropriate. And if you're engaged in a chase across the rooftops, then use the chase rules.

You're misunderstanding the objection. They dislike how the current flight rules make a hummingbird, eagle, beholder, and dragon equally able to just move from place to place. They don't care about how fancy maneuvers are performed, but rather how to model that large birds of prey flat out fly differently than hummingbirds. Minimum forward speeds, turning rate, that sort of thing. To borrow your example a bit, a tool proficiency (jet) could easily be used to perform some complex maneuver that basically turns an F-16 around in a small area, when normally they mostly move forward and require huge distances to actually turn. As written nothing actually says the jet can't just fly backwards.

RenaldoS

2015-09-07, 10:36 PM

This is kind of off-topic of the original intent, but does anyone know any good systems for aerial combat that don't bring combat to a screeching halt while preserving the differences between a hummingbird and a jet?

Naanomi

2015-09-07, 10:39 PM

I can probably count the number of times maneuverability class has mattered in a real game I've played in on two hands, and half of those were with a pixie PC. If it matters, a GM can just tell you a jet doesn't fly backwards in case you forgot, just like he can remind you that humanoids need legs to walk if it ever comes up

RenaldoS

2015-09-07, 10:41 PM

Yeah but that might be a chicken and the egg situation. Like grappling in 3.5, did it never come up because the rules for flying were too unwieldy?

JoeJ

2015-09-07, 10:43 PM

You're misunderstanding the objection. They dislike how the current flight rules make a hummingbird, eagle, beholder, and dragon equally able to just move from place to place. They don't care about how fancy maneuvers are performed, but rather how to model that large birds of prey flat out fly differently than hummingbirds. Minimum forward speeds, turning rate, that sort of thing. To borrow your example a bit, a tool proficiency (jet) could easily be used to perform some complex maneuver that basically turns an F-16 around in a small area, when normally they mostly move forward and require huge distances to actually turn. As written nothing actually says the jet can't just fly backwards.

Okay, but that's just disliking the granularity, which is the same for air movement as it is for ground: a mammoth is just as able to turn on a dime as a halfling or a tiny lizard. As has been said before, if you really want rules that go into great detail about how things happen, then 5e is probably not going to be to your taste.

LordBlades

2015-09-07, 10:46 PM

Lvl 3:
Wolf attacks once: +6 attack, does 2d4+4 (9) DC11 or knocked prone
Me I attack once: +5 attack, does 1d6+3 (6.5)
If I feel fight will drag out, I'll cast hunters mark and do 2d6+3

This means if I hit I'll be averaging around 15.5-19 damage per round at level 3. The wolf will always have advantage, and one failed strength save, and I'll have advantage.

Lvl 5:
Wolf: +7 attack, does 2d4 + 5 (10) DC 11 or knocked prone
I'll attack Twice: +7, doing 1d6+4 (15)
again hunters mark will be cast if the fight will drag out.

This means at level 5 I'm putting out 25-28.5 damage per round

You seem to be operating under the assumption that using your action to command your companion to take the Attack action counts as taking the Attack action yourself for the purpose of TWF Bonus Action atttack, correct?

Has that been Errata-ed or clarified anywhere? Because the PHB doesn't seem to support that.

georgie_leech

2015-09-07, 10:51 PM

Okay, but that's just disliking the granularity, which is the same for air movement as it is for ground: a mammoth is just as able to turn on a dime as a halfling or a tiny lizard. As has been said before, if you really want rules that go into great detail about how things happen, then 5e is probably not going to be to your taste.

It's easier to accept the idea that a mammoth can stand still on the ground than an eagle can hover in midair. I don't have any particular objection to the current state, as I don't mind the sacrifice of granularity (side note, granularity refers to the number of rules and variations a rule set has; 5e is less granular than, not more, 3.p because it has fewer fiddly rules) in favor of simplicity in this context. I just prefer discussions when both sides are on the same page as to what is being discussed.

pwykersotz

2015-09-07, 11:17 PM

I view aerial maneuverability as the bath water, not the baby. Most of the time I just don't want to be saddled with it. I can narrate the dragon's slow turn just fine, as well as the eagle's quick bank to one side. On the very rare occasion that I want to simulate an aerial combat in great detail, I much prefer to ad-hoc something sensible and quick. In the event that I run a campaign that surrounds aerial combat (I never have to-date), then I'd probably pinch one from a space simulator or something.

Most of the time I found that maneuverability in 3.5 was a disappointment because unless you had perfect, it was never good enough to let you do that thing you really wanted to try. I much prefer a skill roll if I want to try a stunt, rather than an "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid you can't do that".

Just my 2cp.

Kane0

2015-09-07, 11:33 PM

I much prefer a skill roll if I want to try a stunt, rather than an "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid you can't do that".

That reminds me of the time our resident rules lawyer played a wizard in our PF game. He used that voice when he rewrote reality/physics with magic in order to better replicate the rules.

JoeJ

2015-09-08, 01:16 AM

It's easier to accept the idea that a mammoth can stand still on the ground than an eagle can hover in midair. I don't have any particular objection to the current state, as I don't mind the sacrifice of granularity (side note, granularity refers to the number of rules and variations a rule set has; 5e is less granular than, not more, 3.p because it has fewer fiddly rules) in favor of simplicity in this context. I just prefer discussions when both sides are on the same page as to what is being discussed.

OK, less granular. What I meant, obviously, is that the rules go into less detail about precisely what happens when.

It seems to me that this comes out of a basic difference in approach. The rules in 3.5 try to describe how the world works, while in 5e they try to describe how your character works. So with aerial movement for example, how long it takes a dragon to turn around isn't important. What matters is whether or not you can get past that dragon and safely into the narrow passage beyond, or whatever else it is you're trying to do. Put another way, you don't look to the rules to figure out what your character can do, you decide first what you want your character to do and then use the rules to determine whether or not they succeed.

goto124

2015-09-08, 04:01 AM

There is a reason Orcus sits on his throne and plots instead of leading armies in battle.

I imagine most leaders to be like this. The difficulty in killing Orcus isn't the direct battle, it's getting to him in the first place.

Even in worlds where Authority Equals Combat Ability, the leaders tend to bring friends. Lots of strong friends.

When you encounter Orcus, you get him, 2 death Knights, a lich and an army of shadows/ banshees (for example).

That's... Not an easy fight for a high level party, let alone easily destroyed by a mid level one.

Also, about aerial movement and combat... how often does it crop up in DnD gameplay? At least an estimate...?

LordBlades

2015-09-08, 05:40 AM

. Put another way, you don't look to the rules to figure out what your character can do, you decide first what you want your character to do and then use the rules to determine whether or not they succeed.

And by 'rules' you mean 'DM fiat' most of the time, right?

Anonymouswizard

2015-09-08, 06:17 AM

Eh.... while a 5e fighter may not be able to do quite as much as a 3e fighter, there's a hell of a lot less it can't do...

This is essentially why I prefer 5e, despite having never gotten to play it (and if fact I haven't even owned it for 24 hours yet). If I want to make, for example, a half-orc Paladin (Oath of Devotion) who wears heavy armour and uses great weapons then it doesn't matter if I started with a Halberd and the GM drops a magical greatsword, as:
-Until I take Polearm master I'm just as good with both.
-If the sword has no special magical abilities then I can continue using my halberd, as a +1 to hit is minor (I would have a problem if the GM dropped a +3 greatsword but no magic halberds, but that's because of how I see the character)

Don't you find the fact that a large enough band of commoners could bring down Orcus even a bit anticlimactic?

Let me try this. I'm going to assume that the commoners are using asks of alchemist's fire, half of which are extinguished before Orcus takes damage, and the other half are extinguished after the first d4 for simplicity.

Your average commoner has 10 Dex and no proficiency in alchemist's fire, so he's hitting on a twenty.

Each flash of alchemist's fire is doing on average 1.25 damage (half the average).

Orcus has 405hp. 324 flasks of alchemist's fire are required, on average, to bring Orcus down. So a village of commoners can take down Orcus, but most of them will die and why does a village have so much alchemist's fire anyway.

On the other hand, let us assume a scenario I might actually run once in a blue moon. Orcus appears in the middle of a city and starts murdering commoners! Many commoners murdered turn into zombies, and whenever Orcus's zombie army runs low he just summons some more.

A few noble families, the wizard's guild and the temples are the people best able to hurt him, so he appears in the slums and makes sure he has an army that numbers in the thousands before sending them against these.

It's certain that the only people who can get to Orcus in time to save the city are the PCs plus a few NPCs such as the captain of the guard (4th-10th level) with a +1 sword, a handful of wizard apprentices (1st-3rd level) with support spells memorized to help mop up zombies near Orcus while the PCs and captain of the guard deals with the liches, death knights, and Orcus, and a handful of acolytes (1st-3rd level) from the local church to provide healing.

When the PCs arrive Orcus does not have his massive army of undead because they are attacking strategic locations in the city. He's lost his best asset but he has a trick up his sleeve: if you kill him he just returns to the abyss.

Wait, I can actually be topless in 5e?

*looks for a 5e campaign :smalltongue:*

So bascially, high 'floor' and no ridiculous amounts of optimization required to be remotely viable?

Well you can, but the graphics designers stuck historically inaccurate underwear on the models. :smalltongue:

I've also considered playing a female monk in historically accurate undergarments. She would eventually explain why she only uses her fists.

Barbarians get (dex bonus + con bonus) to AC when not wearing armor instead of just dex bonus (and they can still use a shield), and a speed increase of 5ft when not using heavy armor.

Higher floor, and lower ceiling. Fewer trap options--some subclasses are slightly overpowered, and some underwhelm slightly (and one is poor at emulating the concept it's supposed to be but works out balance-wise), but they all work reasonably well. The difference between them is not so extreme that they wouldn't still do fine in the same party. You've basically got to try (or not understand the class' strengths and weaknesses) in order to be ineffective.

Yeah, the classes feel designed so that they can't do badly in their niche. The Barbarian and Monk get higher AC when unarmoured, while the Fighter dishes out a lot of damage and the Wizard can sling control spells. The only disappointment I've had is that the Fighter doesn't have a lot of battlefield control.

Really loving the backgrounds, they make every character viable skill-wise from the start and give the player an interesting set of starting equipment. Also loving the changes to the Monk and Bard (especially College of Lore although Valour bards look like a load of fun as well, just dip Fighter 1 for a fighting style and second wind), and I'm happy for the return of true paladins to the game (although the class should have had a different name, as Oath of Devotion is what I think of for paladins). Warlocks and Sorcerers also look like interesting classes, and as a bonus this is the first edition where the wizard wasn't the first class to catch my eye.

Early game magic is also much better, and some of the cantrips just look like pure fun. Magicians no longer have to wait for higher levels to have powerful magic, although spell slots still need to be rationed.

JoeJ

2015-09-08, 11:38 PM

And by 'rules' you mean 'DM fiat' most of the time, right?

Um... no? I'm pretty sure I don't.

LordBlades

2015-09-09, 06:17 AM

Um... no? I'm pretty sure I don't.

Ok, in what way do 5e rules (as opposed to lack of them, which enables the DM to houserule the situation as he sees fit) enable you to do more than 3.5 rules?

Louro

2015-09-09, 07:23 AM

Ok, in what way do 5e rules (as opposed to lack of them, which enables the DM to houserule the situation as he sees fit) enable you to do more than 3.5 rules?
I want to... grapple, trip down, do death from above maneuver, reach him by swinging of that chandelier, pass through his square by sneaking under his legs, push him off the ledge, do the Kirk's wall kick, defend myself, get up get my sword and attack, attack the two goblins, push my mate outside the AoE...

You can do all of this, with a reasonable chance of success, without any special requirement (feats).

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 07:34 AM

For me it's not that the Orcus battle isn't a tough fight. It's that the Orcus portion of that fight won't last long. Any fight with Orcus will have the PCs doing everything they can to focus fire him down, and at AC 20 and 405 hp, that be hard for a high level party to do. That's all. His minion mancy is killer and amazing, but if you snuff him in an Action Surge Blitzkrieg it becomes disappointing.

Anonymouswizard

2015-09-09, 07:46 AM

I want to... grapple, trip down, do death from above maneuver, reach him by swinging of that chandelier, pass through his square by sneaking under his legs, push him off the ledge, do the Kirk's wall kick, defend myself, get up get my sword and attack, attack the two goblins, push my mate outside the AoE...

You can do all of this, with a reasonable chance of success, without any special requirement (feats).

To put it another way, in 3.5 if I want to be competent at any of the things Louro has said here competently I must:
-Spend a feat to do the one I want
-Give up the rest of my attacks or give up my movement

In 5e I need the following:
-Training in Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics), the first for some of the combat maneuvers, the latter for some of the environmental effects.
-Plan out when during my move I want to do them, and how many attacks I want to do this stuff with.

A smaller investment, both for character planning (2 skills with other uses versus several feats specifically for this), and in terms of action cost.

Also, 5e gives two big hints for how to solve any combat maneuver against an enemy:
-The outcome is easy, think about what is would effect and apply advantage/disadvantage.
-For how, look at Grapples and Shoves: a contest of relevant skill vs relevant skill.

For example, a list of off the top of my head combat options would be:
-Fient: Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) or Charisma (Deception) versus Wisdom (Perception). You gain advantage on your next attack roll against the target.
-Disarm: Strength (Athletics) versus Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics). Your opponent must suffer disadvantage on their next attack roll or drop their weapon.
-Trip: as shove, but attacker rolls Dexterity (Athletics).
-Bull Rush: Strength (Athletics) versus Strength (Athletics). Move the opponent back 5ft for every 2 points by which you win the contest.
-Bag of Sand: Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) versus Wisdom (Perception). Your opponent has disadvantage on their attack rolls next term. Requires: bag of sand, which is consumed by this combat option.

Gwendol

2015-09-09, 07:52 AM

This is golden: should have made the books (Phb & Dmg). It says so but with less clarity and purpose.

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 08:12 AM

I want to... grapple, trip down, do death from above maneuver, reach him by swinging of that chandelier, pass through his square by sneaking under his legs, push him off the ledge, do the Kirk's wall kick, defend myself, get up get my sword and attack, attack the two goblins, push my mate outside the AoE...

You can do all of this, with a reasonable chance of success, without any special requirement (feats).

Sure instead you need proficiency in Athletics otherwise it's a d20 crapshoot as to if you're able to succeed at all.

People grossly overstate PF's feats for X paradigm. You can do all of those things in PF with similar chances of success in the check, it's just that PF simulates untrained people attacking trained people to be risky and so you have to actually consider the reality of the fight before you try. Like waiting until a monster has already used up his AOO for the round before you trip him. People that are flat footed also don't get AoOs so you can bum rush someone straight out of the gate. Or if you have the special training, you can do your special move with impunity.

Saying 5E has no barriers to entry on improvised actions is disengenuous because most of those things aren't going to be successfully done without proficiency in that skill. Try shoving someone without Athletics, or grappling for that matter. So while yes you won't get punched in the face for trying, saying you have a reasonable chance of success at these things isn't true. Unless leaping from a balcony, grabbing a chandelier to swing into the orc to knock him out a window is somehow "easy" you could be looking at a DC of 15 with only a +2 to the roll. Failing more than half the time doesn't seem like a reasonable chance of success to me.

LordBlades

2015-09-09, 08:23 AM

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 08:40 AM

JAL_1138

2015-09-09, 09:01 AM

I find this resistance to DM fiat, and using complexity of rules as ward against it, kind of like being in an abusive relationship. "Yeah, my spouse is violent, but that's okay. I'm taking self-defense classes. So our relationship is solid!"

If you can't trust your DM's ad hoc rulings, why are you playing with him?

I do prefer DM fiat to umpteen-dozen fiddly bits, and hail from Ye Olde Days of AD&D, where DM fiat was expected and baked into the rules.

But, there *is* an argument to be made. Most DMs are not game designers, and many are not particularly good with probability mechanics. I'm certainly not. I've revised several of my own rulings/methods and house rules after seeing on these forums just how badly requiring multiple checks for something decreases the likelihood of success, for example.

Waazraath

2015-09-09, 09:07 AM

I'm playing in a 3.5 campaign and in a fifth campaign atm. Both are great fun. A lot of the differences I see already have been commented on in earlier posts. For me: fifth has an elegant simplicity: much easier to understand, much less rules, but without feeling dumbed down; all the elements of 3.5 are still there, but because the streamlining of the rules (advantage / disadvantage, almost every roll "stat + prof + d20) makes it smoother. I really like the subclasses design, and the backgrounds. 3.5 character building is more fun, it's a game in a game, and a real intellectual challange because of the 100+ books, all the prereqs, endless amounts of feats, items, spells and prestige classes.

Funny thing: our group that plays 3.5 plays for years and years and years 3.5, the fifth group plays fifth only for a few months: but the 'looking up how this works' occurs much more often in the 3.5 group.

MadBear

2015-09-09, 09:10 AM

So it's not the 5e rules that allow you to do x, but 5e's lack of rules.

I think the miscommunication happening here is largely what you mean when you say lack of rules.

5e does indeed have a lack of specific rules for any given scenario compared to 3.x. There isn't a set DC for swinging on a chandelier for instance. So in this regard you are totally correct that 5e lacks rules for many given scenarios.

Now does this mean that 5e tells the players and DM "this system doesn't have rules for X, therefore just do whatever you want."? No, instead it outlines parameters about how to use the existing rules to cover instances where a specific rule isn't found. In fact I find parameter's to be a much more useful tool then specific rules, since they can be applied more broadly.

I think the disconnect is happening between people is that when people say "in 5e it's just DM fiat, it's just homebrew, etc.", they come off as if their saying "make up rules, with no regards to anything, since 5e lacks rules", even if that isn't the message being conveyed.

Now as someone that loves 5e way more then 3.x, I'll admit that it has far fewer rules, and I prefer it that way. I like that it sets broad parameters and asks the DM to adjudicate a scenario based on those parameters, rather then having it laid out very specifically. In a way it is DM fiat, because the how/when a rule will work is up to the DM. However, if the DM is using the guidelines it's not like the DM will say "ok we're going to be using 7th Sea's rules for this, since the rule isn't spelled out and I can do whatever I want (then again as the DM he could do this if he chose under either scenario, but assuming he's acting in good faith, then no he wouldn't)".

As another good example, when I first played 3.x, I remember making a big burly fighter named Ugg. I wanted to intimidate a prisoner into telling me where his secret hideout was. I asked if I could intimidate him by taking a iron beam, bending it into a neat little bow, and letting him know that was going to be his spine if he didn't tell me what I wanted to know. Well, even though I put ranks in intimidate, the fact that I had a 12 charisma meant that I failed. Meanwhile the rogue punched him in the face, rolled 2 damage, and then rolled his intimidate check getting a 29 (don't remember his feat/ability combinations, but that was a fairly average roll for him) and got the info immediately. I asked the DM if in certain scenario's I could use my size and strength during intimidate checks and replace charisma with strength. The response was "there's a feat for that, and you can't without it".

To me that's the one big problem I had with 3.x.

JAL_1138

2015-09-09, 09:31 AM

To clarify, there's some language in 5th (PHB p. 175, "Variant: Skills with different abilities") saying that other attributes can be used for checks if the DM thinks they're applicable (although again, goes to DM fiat). Using Strength (Intimidation) rather than Charisma (Intimidation) for using "a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy" is specifically mentioned.

LordBlades

2015-09-09, 09:40 AM

I find this resistance to DM fiat, and using complexity of rules as ward against it, kind of like being in an abusive relationship. "Yeah, my spouse is violent, but that's okay. I'm taking self-defense classes. So our relationship is solid!"

If you can't trust your DM's ad hoc rulings, why are you playing with him?

It's not about not trusting the DM, but rather wanting 2 things (for me at least):

I want to know the extent of my character's capabilities, as well as what's possible in the world. Witha a 'DM may I...' kind of system that thing doesn't happen.

I want consistency. Unless the DM is writing down every tiny call he makes (and most DMs I've played with don't), it's possible that attempting the same action 6 months or 1 year of RL time later will be houseruled diferently.

EDIT: It's also likely 2 DMs would adjudicate the same situation differently as well.

goto124

2015-09-09, 10:23 AM

'DM may I...' kind of system

I've heard that term used a lot on these forums.

R.Shackleford

2015-09-09, 10:37 AM

I've heard that term used a lot on these forums.

Between how WotC explains their rules, 5e is very much a "DM may I" system. It was intentional from what I've seen.

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 10:40 AM

It's not about not trusting the DM, but rather wanting 2 things (for me at least):

I want to know the extent of my character's capabilities, as well as what's possible in the world. Witha a 'DM may I...' kind of system that thing doesn't happen.

Why not? You're just getting it from a different source. You can look it up in a book or you can ask your DM. Either way you'll get an answer.

If you don't think your DM will give you a well thought out response, then I submit that it is about trusting the DM to give the matter the attention it needs.

I want consistency. Unless the DM is writing down every tiny call he makes (and most DMs I've played with don't), it's possible that attempting the same action 6 months or 1 year of RL time later will be houseruled diferently.

EDIT: It's also likely 2 DMs would adjudicate the same situation differently as well.

Again I'm seeing this as a trust issue. You don't trust your DM to be consistent. There's a simple solution to this, of course. When your DM comes up with an ad hoc ruling, you write it down, perhaps on your char sheet. My players do this all the time. That way when it comes up again six months later, I can say "what did we rule last time?" and my player checks it out on his sheet. If it still seems to make sense, we go with it. If not, we hash out something better and the player writes that down (that doesn't happen often).

I don't see a problem with two DMs working out two different rulings to something. It works one way in one game and a slightly different way in another game. If you only play D&D, this might seem weird, but if you play different game systems you'll end up doing this anyway. No two games abstract reality the same way.

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 10:51 AM

Between how WotC explains their rules, 5e is very much a "DM may I" system. It was intentional from what I've seen.

Yes, feature. Not bug.

But, there *is* an argument to be made. Most DMs are not game designers, and many are not particularly good with probability mechanics. I'm certainly not. I've revised several of my own rulings/methods and house rules after seeing on these forums just how badly requiring multiple checks for something decreases the likelihood of success, for example.

That, to me, is a good functional definition of "being good with probability mechanics." No one expects you to know everything out of the gate. That you learned from your mistakes and revised your rules makes you awesome. :smallcool:

R.Shackleford

2015-09-09, 10:56 AM

Yes, feature. Not bug.

Both.

It is a feature that causes a lot of problems. When I make my character I shouldn't have to keep asking questions well past PC creation in order to know my character.

Bad feature that causes bugs in other parts of the game.

Edit:

Magic pretty much fixes this bug as magic for the most part tells you exactly what you can and can't do.

A Fighter trying to jump and climb up a slick ledge has no clue how a DC 20 Athletics check will help... Or if he even can attempt such a feat.

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 11:21 AM

A Fighter trying to jump and climb up a slick ledge has no clue how a DC 20 Athletics check will help... Or if he even can attempt such a feat.

I don't understand. If I'm playing a fighter and I want to jump up and climb up a slick ledge, why do I need to know the mechanics? All I need to know is the DC. The DM determines that based on a combination of DC suggestions in the DMG and common sense. This DC shouldn't be a surprise after the first or second session.

If you're playing a fighter and you're trying to decide if you can jump up and climb up a ledge, you'd use the same mental process you'd use in real life -- observation. If, in real life, you see an 8' ledge, you might, based on past experience and awareness of your current athletic condition, decide you could get up onto it relatively easily. If it was a 30' ledge, you'd probably determine it'd be really hard to get up there.

So, same thing in-game. "My fighter should be able to get up that 8' ledge pretty easily, so I'd expect the DC to be in the 'easy' range." What is that in 5e -- 15 or so? If the DM comes back with anything significantly higher than that, you might have cause to question it. "It looks easy, why are you assigning it a DC of 25?" If the DM says he has a reason, then you need to trust that he does, or decide that he's a bad DM and deal with it however you can. If the DM says 25 is "easy" then you may have to resort to pointing out that the DMG disagrees.

I don't see how this really would be any different with PF or 3.x or whatever.

LordBlades

2015-09-09, 11:46 AM

Why not? You're just getting it from a different source. You can look it up in a book or you can ask your DM. Either way you'll get an answer.

If you don't think your DM will give you a well thought out response, then I submit that it is about trusting the DM to give the matter the attention it needs.

Again I'm seeing this as a trust issue. You don't trust your DM to be consistent. There's a simple solution to this, of course. When your DM comes up with an ad hoc ruling, you write it down, perhaps on your char sheet. My players do this all the time. That way when it comes up again six months later, I can say "what did we rule last time?" and my player checks it out on his sheet. If it still seems to make sense, we go with it. If not, we hash out something better and the player writes that down (that doesn't happen often).

I don't see a problem with two DMs working out two different rulings to something. It works one way in one game and a slightly different way in another game. If you only play D&D, this might seem weird, but if you play different game systems you'll end up doing this anyway. No two games abstract reality the same way.

I can read a book and collect all.the relevant information about what my character can and can't do, hell, I can even find out my character can do stuff I hadn't cinsidered so far. Meanwhile, I can't read a DMs mind. He can only tellme whether I can or can't do stuff I thought about, not provide me with an exhaustive list of my character's capabilities and limitations.

About the 2 DM issues, it just bothers me (subjectively) when Frank the Fighter in game A is a masterful chandellier swinger (because the DM ruled it's a DC 15) but his almost identical twin brother Fred in game B fails at it horribly (because the DM ruled it's a DC 25).

Louro

2015-09-09, 11:53 AM

I can read a book and collect all.the relevant information about what my character can and can't do.
No. You can not.
All you can collect is a probability chance of success. You might swing of the chandelier like a graceful hero and yet fail miserabily the next time you try it.

But in 5e you don't need to plan all your character to be a master chandelier swinger. You can just try it. Every DM is diferent*, it is part of the game. Some are better, some are worse...

*I had one that didn't allow me to jump over a dwarf in 3.5... with my monk

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 12:08 PM

I can read a book and collect all.the relevant information about what my character can and can't do, hell, I can even find out my character can do stuff I hadn't cinsidered so far. Meanwhile, I can't read a DMs mind. He can only tellme whether I can or can't do stuff I thought about, not provide me with an exhaustive list of my character's capabilities and limitations.

Can you provide an example of this?

About the 2 DM issues, it just bothers me (subjectively) when Frank the Fighter in game A is a masterful chandellier swinger (because the DM ruled it's a DC 15) but his almost identical twin brother Fred in game B fails at it horribly (because the DM ruled it's a DC 25).

Eh. I guess I'd just stop playing in the game that isn't fun or satisfying for me. But 5e allows one DM to run a OOT swashbuckler game and another DM to run a GoT gritty reality game, using basically the same rules. This allows for a wider variety of D&D games out there which is healthy for the game in general.

Look at it another way. I want to run that OOT game while you want to run your dark & dirty realistic game. Do we really need two completely different systems for that? Why not build a framework and allow each DM to run the game the way he wants. Just because a DM runs a game doesn't mean you have to play it. Play the one you like.

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 12:10 PM

But in 5e you don't need to plan all your character to be a master chandelier swinger. You can just try it. Every DM is diferent*, it is part of the game. Some are better, some are worse...

I think I'm getting what the problem is. If I build my "chandelier jumper" using feats and a specialized build and stuff, then it's unlikely anyone else in the party will have done the same thing. Therefore I'm the only "chandelier jumper" on the team, which makes me special.

If I don't have a mechanism to build a specific "chandelier jumper" and instead just try it, then regardless of how well I can do it, it really means any other PC in the party can also try it. I'm no longer the only "c-jumper" and therefore I'm less special.

So instead, in 5e, you need to know how to balance your various skills and ability scores to maximize your "chandelier jumping" success. It's much easier in PF/3.x to just select "chandelier jump" off a shelf of feats.

I can understand this, even if I don't subscribe to this mentality myself.

*I had one that didn't allow me to jump over a dwarf in 3.5... with my monk

Maybe you should have crushed that dwarf first.

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 01:39 PM

I can read a book and collect all.the relevant information about what my character can and can't do, hell, I can even find out my character can do stuff I hadn't cinsidered so far. Meanwhile, I can't read a DMs mind. He can only tellme whether I can or can't do stuff I thought about, not provide me with an exhaustive list of my character's capabilities and limitations.

About the 2 DM issues, it just bothers me (subjectively) when Frank the Fighter in game A is a masterful chandellier swinger (because the DM ruled it's a DC 15) but his almost identical twin brother Fred in game B fails at it horribly (because the DM ruled it's a DC 25).

So in 3.5 what is the DC for swinging on a chandelier? Is it the same for all chandeliers? If not, where is the table that shows the modifier for all the different possible situations? What kind of action is it? Which skills and/or feats apply? Is swinging on a rope treated the same or differently? I don't have the 3.5 books handy, but I do have the PF Core Rulebook and I can't find anything in there about chandelier swinging. Can you point me to those rules, because I certainly don't want have to use DM fiat or make an ad hoc ruling.

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 01:47 PM

So in 3.5 what is the DC for swinging on a chandelier? Is it the same for all chandeliers? If not, where is the table that shows the modifier for all the different possible situations? What kind of action is it? Which skills and/or feats apply? Is swinging on a rope treated the same or differently? I don't have the 3.5 books handy, but I do have the PF Core Rulebook and I can't find anything in there about chandelier swinging. Can you point me to those rules, because I certainly don't want have to use DM fiat or make an ad hoc ruling.

I would not be surprised in the least to learn there's a "Chandelier Swinger" feat in PF.

Louro

2015-09-09, 01:54 PM

I would not be surprised in the least to learn there's a "Chandelier Swinger" feat in PF.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Topple_%283.5e_Feat%29

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 02:03 PM

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Topple_%283.5e_Feat%29

There's a feat for turning over tables. Wow. Just wow.

Louro

2015-09-09, 02:04 PM

And dislodge wall mounted chandeliers.

I guess you need a prestige class for the chandelier swing thing.

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 02:59 PM

And dislodge wall mounted chandeliers.

I guess you need a prestige class for the chandelier swing thing.

Which combination of regular and prestige classes would let me play a pirate who fights with a cutlass in each hand, who knows how to both sail and navigate a ship, who has the agility and balance to fight in the rigging or while balanced on a yardarm, and who is stealthy enough to have earned the nickname "Cat?" This is assuming, of course, that the character will be good enough at those things to be an asset rather than a liability to a moderately optimized party. How many levels do I have to wait to get all of this?

The reason I ask is because that describes my most recent 5e character, a fighter, at first level. Except that she could also cast Prestidigitation at will because she was a high elf.

rgrekejin

2015-09-09, 03:25 PM

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Topple_%283.5e_Feat%29

I'm not eager to get dragged back into this discussion, but you all know that D&Dwiki is mostly composed of low-quality homebrew (like this example), not official content, right?

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 04:11 PM

Damn ninja'd

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 05:02 PM

I'm not eager to get dragged back into this discussion, but you all know that D&Dwiki is mostly composed of low-quality homebrew (like this example), not official content, right?

Certainly, but it still serves the point because it's endemic of the PF/3.x mindset.

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 06:27 PM

Certainly, but it still serves the point because it's endemic of the PF/3.x mindset.

Disagree, I'm a PF fan and I do not subscribe to that mindset at all. There's a reason D&Dwiki is known for terrible homebrew after all. It's like its some terrible grognard subculture of shattered dreams and terrible massacers of game design...

EggKookoo

2015-09-09, 06:30 PM

Disagree, I'm a PF fan and I do not subscribe to that mindset at all. There's a reason D&Dwiki is known for terrible homebrew after all. It's like its some terrible grognard subculture of shattered dreams and terrible massacers of game design...

I think that D&Dwiki exists in its current form at all supports what I'm saying. You, yourself, may be a PF fan and not subscribe to that mindset, but a site like that wouldn't come about if you represented the majority. It's basically a shrine to 3.x excess.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-09, 06:39 PM

Which combination of regular and prestige classes would let me play a pirate who fights with a cutlass in each hand, who knows how to both sail and navigate a ship, who has the agility and balance to fight in the rigging or while balanced on a yardarm, and who is stealthy enough to have earned the nickname "Cat?" This is assuming, of course, that the character will be good enough at those things to be an asset rather than a liability to a moderately optimized party. How many levels do I have to wait to get all of this?
First level rogue, with skill ranks in profession (sailor), acrobatics, and stealth. Easy enough.

What's your point exactly? Practically any medieval fantasy RPG system allows straightforward builds like that.

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 07:05 PM

First level rogue, with skill ranks in profession (sailor), acrobatics, and stealth. Easy enough.

If you ignore the part about being able to fight effectively with a dexterity build wielding two cutlasses.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-09, 07:08 PM

If you ignore the part about being able to fight effectively with a dexterity build wielding two cutlasses.

Yes, it's called Two Weapon Fighting. Works at level 1, the only prerequisite is dex 15.

JNAProductions

2015-09-09, 07:30 PM

Wouldn't you still be at something like -6/-4 when fighting?

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 07:31 PM

Yes, it's called Two Weapon Fighting. Works at level 1, the only prerequisite is dex 15.

(My reply is based on PF because I have the book handy. I'm aware that other variations on 3e might be slightly different.)

A -4 to hit with both weapons counts as effective? For a character that probably doesn't have a strength bonus?

You also need Weapon Finesse for a dexterity build. And you have to pick a different weapon, because a scimitar (i.e. cutlass) can't be used with that feat, and rogues aren't proficient with them anyway, unless they take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.

So you're actually waiting until 3rd level and using two feats just to have a choice of being terrible in combat or giving up the iconic pirate weapon to be slightly less terrible.

Hawkstar

2015-09-09, 07:34 PM

Yes, it's called Two Weapon Fighting. Works at level 1, the only prerequisite is dex 15.

No it doesn't. Two weapon fighting doesn't work at any level in 3.P.

Louro

2015-09-09, 07:35 PM

The point we are trying to show here with the chandelier thing is that, in 5e you can build up whatever character idea you have in mind by just piking the basic stuff. And it will work! Meanwhile in 3.X is really dificult (if even possible) to build whatever you want. And if you do so you are locked into that.

5e allows you for creative playing while 3.X restrains from doing anything else other than what you planned your character for. Among maaaaany other points already stated in this thread.

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 07:37 PM

First level rogue, with skill ranks in profession (sailor), acrobatics, and stealth. Easy enough.

What's your point exactly? Practically any medieval fantasy RPG system allows straightforward builds like that.

Or Slayer with the same skills, or Swashbuckler (they're fun) or Urban Barbarian, or Spell less Ranger freebooter archetype is great for seamanship. Fighter can even do it if you want to go that route, though you waste a lot of armour features doing it (though archetypes change that). Tonnes of options to give you exactly the feel and capability you'd want out of 'Cat'.

Edit: Two weapon fighting works just fine. Is it as good as 2handing? No, but just like 5E the game is tuned enough that you don't have to worry about getting every last +1 out of it to murderize whatever's in the book.

For the Rogue build:
Unchained Rogue gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level. Thus the Rogue could take Two Weapon Fighting to dual wield straight from level 1. Using rapiers flavoured as cutlesses, or two shortswords as cutlesses to mitigate some penalties since I'm not sure cutless exists as a different weapon. If you're human you even get weapon focus which reduces your two rapier penalties from -2/-4 to -1/-3 which when you add in a 16 Dex (since you're going that way) is two attacks with a full attack at +2 / +0 which is just fine for a first level character, especially since your roguing will mean flanking or your rigging climbing will mean height advantage.

So now you're attacking at:
+2 +2 flanking +1 high ground for +5 / +3 at level 1, for 1d8+1d6 damage an attack, average 7 an attack. So you butcher any orc or goblin in a full attack critting on an 18-20 with each attack. And you're also level 1. Act swiftly to get the jump on your targets with your crew and you get a surprise round in at:
+2(Dex)+2(charge)+2(flank)+1(Weapon Focus) = +7 to hit for 1d8+1d6 damage that's against their flat footed AC. If you can't get the flank flat footed is amazing.

With the joy of switch hitting you can dash away moving into and out of hiding throwing daggers if you want attacking at +1/+1 but with a +4 to hit for being an invisible attacker and again vs flat footed AC.

How is that not just find for a first level character again?

Hawkstar

2015-09-09, 07:40 PM

(My reply is based on PF because I have the book handy. I'm aware that other variations on 3e might be slightly different.)

A -4 to hit with both weapons counts as effective? For a character that probably doesn't have a strength bonus?

You also need Weapon Finesse for a dexterity build. And you have to pick a different weapon, because a scimitar (i.e. cutlass) can't be used with that feat, and rogues aren't proficient with them anyway, unless they take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.

So you're actually waiting until 3rd level and using two feats just to have a choice of being terrible in combat or giving up the iconic pirate weapon to be slightly less terrible.
A scimitar is a scimitar, not a Cutlass. A cutlass is a Light 1d6 19-20/x2 Slashing weapon that grants a +2 to avoid being disarmed, found in Stormwrack. That said, rogues and two-weapon fighters in 3.5 are nonfunctional in anything other than the bare floor of optimization in 3.P.
I think I'm getting what the problem is. If I build my "chandelier jumper" using feats and a specialized build and stuff, then it's unlikely anyone else in the party will have done the same thing. Therefore I'm the only "chandelier jumper" on the team, which makes me special.
If you have to have exclusive chandelier swinging rights in D&D to feel special, I feel sorry for you. Please, get out of that relationship ASAP, because it's not healthy.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-09, 07:45 PM

A -4 to hit with both weapons counts as effective? For a character that probably doesn't have a strength bonus?

You also need Weapon Finesse for a dexterity build. And you have to pick a different weapon, because a scimitar (i.e. cutlass) can't be used with that feat, and rogues aren't proficient with them anyway, unless they take the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.

(1) you don't get a -4 for dual wielding; (2) rogues get finesse for free; and (3) a scimitar is an Arabian Nights desert weapon, so that's obviously not a cutlass. However, rogues are proficient in the short sword, which does the same damage anyway.

And in exchange, you get a markedly higher bonus on sailing, balancing, stealth, and every other skill you select; making you that much more competent at all the other aspects of your character. And a bonus feat, assuming you're human.

So yeah, practically any medieval fantasy RPG system allows straightforward builds like that.

(edit) Also, that:

Or Slayer with the same skills, or Swashbuckler (they're fun) or Urban Barbarian, or Spell less Ranger freebooter archetype is great for seamanship. Fighter can even do it if you want to go that route, though you waste a lot of armour features doing it (though archetypes change that). Tonnes of options to give you exactly the feel and capability you'd want out of 'Cat'.

Knaight

2015-09-09, 07:50 PM

A Fighter trying to jump and climb up a slick ledge has no clue how a DC 20 Athletics check will help... Or if he even can attempt such a feat.

This seems like one of those problems that crops up in theory vastly more than in actual gameplay. Sure, the lack of absolute defined difficulties for everything does make it theoretically possible for just about anything to have any difficulty. In practice though, I've generally found that most of the time the same sorts of tasks generally end up with the same difficulty. The game system doesn't tell you if a DC 20 Athletics check will help, but by the time the game starts the general feel has probably been established, the adjectives in use remain well known, and it's a pretty safe bet that a DC 20 Athletics check will be pretty useful, provided that the ledge is reasonably nearby and there aren't extreme mitigating factors like trying to do the jump and climb with one arm, while still wearing a gauntlet on said arm and carrying a wounded comrade.

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 08:16 PM

(1) you don't get a -4 for dual wielding; (2) rogues get finesse for free; and (3) a scimitar is an Arabian Nights desert weapon, so that's obviously not a cutlass. However, rogues are proficient in the short sword, which does the same damage anyway.

And in exchange, you get a markedly higher bonus on sailing, balancing, stealth, and every other skill you select; making you that much more competent at all the other aspects of your character. And a bonus feat, assuming you're human.

So yeah, practically any medieval fantasy RPG system allows straightforward builds like that.

(edit) Also, that:

1) 3.5 PHB p. 160. With the two weapon fighting feat you have -4 to hit with each weapon. You can bring it down to -2 with each only if the off-hand weapon is light.

2) Please point out where that is. As far as I can see, rogues can't even take Weapon Finesse until they're at least 2nd level because you need a +1 BAB.

3) They're both one-handed curved blades. Cutlass isn't on the weapon table, so I picked the sword that's the closest match.

4) A higher bonus? Higher than what? You can't directly compare 3.5 skill ranks with 5e skill/tool proficiency.

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 08:18 PM

1) 3.5 PHB p. 160. With the two weapon fighting feat you have -4 to hit with each weapon. You can bring it down to -2 with each only if the off-hand weapon is light.

2) Please point out where that is. As far as I can see, rogues can't even take Weapon Finesse until they're at least 2nd level because you need a +1 BAB.

3) They're both one-handed curved blades. Cutlass isn't on the weapon table, so I picked the sword that's the closest match.

4) A higher bonus? Higher than what? You can't directly compare 3.5 skill ranks with 5e skill/tool proficiency.

Pathfinder unchained Rogue has finesse at level 1 as bonus. Prolly what he meant.

Hawkstar

2015-09-09, 08:39 PM

1) 3.5 PHB p. 160. With the two weapon fighting feat you have -4 to hit with each weapon. You can bring it down to -2 with each only if the off-hand weapon is light.And two cutlasses are light.

2) Please point out where that is. As far as I can see, rogues can't even take Weapon Finesse until they're at least 2nd level because you need a +1 BAB.Pathfinder Unchained rogue. They finally made a rogue that wasn't complete garbage in the system.

3) They're both one-handed curved blades. Cutlass isn't on the weapon table, so I picked the sword that's the closest match.Short sword is the closer match. A scimitar is as large as a longsword in 3.P. And in 3.5, the Cutlass is in Stormwrack.

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 08:43 PM

Also weapon finesse doesn't have a BAB requirement in PF so :D

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 09:34 PM

And two cutlasses are light.

So -2 on both attacks instead of -4. And Weapon Finesse doesn't let you use dexterity as your damage bonus. Plus rogues only get d6 hit dice. It's hard to see how this character is contributing very much in combat. Cat was a front line combatant, and could also double as a very effective archer.

Pathfinder Unchained rogue. They finally made a rogue that wasn't complete garbage in the system.

Short sword is the closer match. A scimitar is as large as a longsword in 3.P. And in 3.5, the Cutlass is in Stormwrack.

I would say scimitar is a closer match because it's slashing damage, but okay. Isn't Stormwrack for 3.5? So this build requires two splatbooks for two different games, and the character still isn't very good at fighting.

There are some character concepts that are really easy to do in 3.5. An effective finesse based two-weapon combatant who also has a lot of out of combat utility isn't one of them.

charcoalninja

2015-09-09, 09:55 PM

I laid it out for you pretty well a few posts up. Rogue build is fine.

Malifice

2015-09-09, 10:15 PM

Magic pretty much fixes this bug as magic for the most part tells you exactly what you can and can't do.

Can you direct me to the section that takes DM fiat away from Magic?

Like; why cant I [the DM] call for a spell attack roll for a trickily placed fireball?

A Fighter trying to jump and climb up a slick ledge has no clue how a DC 20 Athletics check will help... Or if he even can attempt such a feat.

How come? Can we not knot he knows (and trusts) his DM, so it's fair to say he knows if he can attempt the feat, and what the DC would be?

JoeJ

2015-09-09, 10:21 PM

I laid it out for you pretty well a few posts up. Rogue build is fine.

I guess. But it isn't a sure thing that PU will be allowed in the campaign, much less that somebody will let me borrow their copy (I stopped buying PF splats about the time 5e came out). Flanking and elevation bonuses are situational; I can't count on that every round or even every fight. Changing the race to human for Weapon Focus means giving up the +2 dexterity of an elf, which hurts both my hit bonus and my AC. The AC is especially important with a rogue's low hit points.

Bottom line, the character is probably playable, but they would have to fight very differently than Cat did. Your rogue is not going to be able to stand in the front line as a major damage dealer, and they can't combine high mobility with multiple attacks because in 3.5 you don't get your full number of attacks if you move more than 1 step.

Malifice

2015-09-09, 10:27 PM

Or Slayer with the same skills, or Swashbuckler (they're fun) or Urban Barbarian, or Spell less Ranger freebooter archetype is great for seamanship. Fighter can even do it if you want to go that route, though you waste a lot of armour features doing it (though archetypes change that). Tonnes of options to give you exactly the feel and capability you'd want out of 'Cat'.

Edit: Two weapon fighting works just fine. Is it as good as 2handing? No, but just like 5E the game is tuned enough that you don't have to worry about getting every last +1 out of it to murderize whatever's in the book.

For the Rogue build:
Unchained Rogue gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level. Thus the Rogue could take Two Weapon Fighting to dual wield straight from level 1. Using rapiers flavoured as cutlesses, or two shortswords as cutlesses to mitigate some penalties since I'm not sure cutless exists as a different weapon. If you're human you even get weapon focus which reduces your two rapier penalties from -2/-4 to -1/-3 which when you add in a 16 Dex (since you're going that way) is two attacks with a full attack at +2 / +0 which is just fine for a first level character, especially since your roguing will mean flanking or your rigging climbing will mean height advantage.

So now you're attacking at:
+2 +2 flanking +1 high ground for +5 / +3 at level 1, for 1d8+1d6 damage an attack, average 7 an attack. So you butcher any orc or goblin in a full attack critting on an 18-20 with each attack. And you're also level 1. Act swiftly to get the jump on your targets with your crew and you get a surprise round in at:
+2(Dex)+2(charge)+2(flank)+1(Weapon Focus) = +7 to hit for 1d8+1d6 damage that's against their flat footed AC. If you can't get the flank flat footed is amazing.

With the joy of switch hitting you can dash away moving into and out of hiding throwing daggers if you want attacking at +1/+1 but with a +4 to hit for being an invisible attacker and again vs flat footed AC.

How is that not just find for a first level character again?

This is the exact point.

If you want to play a decent Dex based Fighter in PF you should [Dip swashbucker or Unchained Rogue, pick up Slashing grace/ Fencing grace for dex to damage, splash some Urban Barbarian, pick up the 'pirate' trait (or finding haleen) etc etc).

This requires a crap load of system mastery, several hours of trawling through multiple books for traits, archetypes, feats, classes, racial features etc (dudes literally spend weeks designing PF 'builds'). When I sit down to create a character with a new player, we devote a whole day to it.

If you want to play a decent Dex based Fighter in 5e; you just.. do it. Takes 15 minutes.

I struggle to find a class or archetype in all 50+ the PF splat books/ Golarion stuff, that I cant create with a billion times less effort, and in a fraction of the time, using the first few chapters of the 5e PHB alone.

LordBlades

2015-09-09, 10:43 PM

Can you provide an example of this?

Let's take the stuff that somebody posted earlier about intimidating with Str instead of Cha and not being allowed to do so in 3.5 without the feat that allows you to do just that.

Let's say you build a character that's strong but not charismatic.

In 3.5 you read the book, find the feat that allows you to intimidate on Str and now you know that this is possible and what you need to take to have this ability if you want it (it's also very clear you don't have it by default).

In 5e you read the book, get some generic stuff about DM allowing you to roll for a skill with other stats, but let's say rolling for Intimidate with Str doesn't cross your mind (I know it's one of the examples in the PHB,but for the sake of the argument let's assume it wasn't; the list of examples is in no way exhaustive, and point stands for anything not on that list). You accept your character is strong, but not particularly intimidating and move on with the play. 6 months later you see a fellow player using Intimidate on Str and DM agrees. You've just discovered an ability your character had all along, that might have come in handy until now, but you have no idea about.

Eh. I guess I'd just stop playing in the game that isn't fun or satisfying for me. But 5e allows one DM to run a OOT swashbuckler game and another DM to run a GoT gritty reality game, using basically the same rules. This allows for a wider variety of D&D games out there which is healthy for the game in general

It does suck when you show up expecting to play OOT swashbucking and the DM is running GoT (or viceversa), especially if you find out after the game started. The wider the variety of different games you can run in a system, the more explaining the DM needs to do before the game and the bigger the chance of somebody expecting something else from the game.

Look at it another way. I want to run that OOT game while you want to run your dark & dirty realistic game. Do we really need two completely different systems for that? Why not build a framework and allow each DM to run the game the way he wants. Just because a DM runs a game doesn't mean you have to play it. Play the one you like.

Personally, I'm a fan of the FFG way of doing things (the Star Wars and WH40k RPG): multiple compatible systems with a relatively narrow scope, splitting the setting. It helps gets the players on the same page about what game is being run. When the GM asks you if you want to play Dark Heresy for example, it's already implied in the premise of the game that running around as a Chaos Space Marine putting mass reactive shells and chainaxes through the skulls of Loyalists will not be an option.

There are some character concepts that are really easy to do in 3.5. An effective finesse based two-weapon combatant who also has a lot of out of combat utility isn't one of them.

Have you considered Swordsage? Or even a Tiger Claw Warblade ?

The point we are trying to show here with the chandelier thing is that, in 5e you can build up whatever character idea you have in mind by just piking the basic stuff. And it will work!

How about a Necromancer that focuses on animating big, brutish things to do his work (as opposed to hordes of humanoids) for example?

Or a hero coming from a 'monster race' like orcs or goblins?

goto124

2015-09-09, 11:20 PM

The wider the variety of different games you can run in a system, the more explaining the DM needs to do before the game and the bigger the chance of somebody expecting something else from the game.

I'm curious as to how much this applies in practice.

If you want to play a decent Dex based Fighter in PF you should [Dip swashbucker or Unchained Rogue, pick up Slashing grace/ Fencing grace for dex to damage, splash some Urban Barbarian, pick up the 'pirate' trait (or finding haleen) etc etc).

This requires a crap load of system mastery, several hours of trawling through multiple books for traits, archetypes, feats, classes, racial features etc (dudes literally spend weeks designing PF 'builds'). When I sit down to create a character with a new player, we devote a whole day to it.

If you want to play a decent Dex based Fighter in 5e; you just.. do it. Takes 15 minutes.

I struggle to find a class or archetype in all 50+ the PF splat books/ Golarion stuff, that I cant create with a billion times less effort, and in a fraction of the time, using the first few chapters of the 5e PHB alone.

*boggles*

Demonic Spoon

2015-09-09, 11:43 PM

In 5e you read the book, get some generic stuff about DM allowing you to roll for a skill with other stats, but let's say rolling for Intimidate with Str doesn't cross your mind (I know it's one of the examples in the PHB,but for the sake of the argument let's assume it wasn't; the list of examples is in no way exhaustive, and point stands for anything not on that list). You accept your character is strong, but not particularly intimidating and move on with the play. 6 months later you see a fellow player using Intimidate on Str and DM agrees. You've just discovered an ability your character had all along, that might have come in handy until now, but you have no idea about.

The example given in the PHB isn't just using strength for intimidation, it's specifically performing a feat of strength to intimidate someone. It's a very specific circumstance where you're starting down someone and are trying to convince them that you would be able to hurt them where they may not believe you, and there's something hard to break that you can snap to demonstrate that you could break them in half, too.

You could have come up with this organically as part of gameplay. You don't need the book to tell you that you can do this. You can just decide that the appropriate thing for your character to do in this situation is to find something nearby and break it in a menacing manner, leading to the "Make a strength(intimidation) check".